Hatin’ on the left

So Trevor Mallard thinks it’s smart to stick the boot in to Russell Norman for linking to an article about using the printing of money as a tool of monetary policy.

Well it says a lot more about the state of the Labour Party than anything else. It just goes to show what happens when throwbacks from the 1980s like Goff, Mallard, and King are running your strategy.

You get a party that refuses to accept the world has changed, can’t think outside the confines of neo-liberalism and gets outflanked at every turn by the Greens.

That’s why their best answer to the housing crisis has been a public-private partnership targeting middle class voters.

No wonder Labour’s stuck on 31%.

Update: sigh. this isn’t about the merits of quantitative easing. It’s about the merits of senior MP attacking the Co-Leader of his party’s one coalition option in public (the ‘presume this is an intern’ comment is particularly childish). Professionals just don’t pull that shit.

I was wondering that myself. Then I read that it was all about twitter feeds. Since they have limits (140 chars) to satisfy even the most neurotic of the anti-intellectual and policy deficient, of course the analysis of the information that they contain is going to come from the right. And that has been the case for many years. Whaleoil seems to spend his life reading them.

Man why in hell are you continually posting anti-Labour stuff on this site? Your headlines are starting to make this place look like the front page of the Herald. Please go off and start your own party and let prejudiced people continuously throw shit at you – whatever – but please just get outta my face. And don’t give me the bullshit about ‘democracy’ and entitlement to ‘opinions’, neither of those words cover your pontificating – you’re worse that a chauvinist preacher shouting damnation from a pulpit. Crawl under a stone and leave us in peace. Please.

[lprent: Take your own advice – 2 months ban. Basically arseholes who attack authors don’t deserve my time reading them. This isn’t a “Labour” site – read the about. And you are a fool. ]

So Labour MP’s like Shane Jones and now Trevor Mallard should just be left to fire off any old anti-Green Party s**t that pops into their obviously empty heads at any point in time and we all should just sit here in silence,

Mallard is right to stick the boot in. Printing money is stupid in an economy with a positive interest rate. The first step would be to drop interest rates. Printing money only becomes sensible if there is no more room to drop rates and an economy is risking deflation.

Anyway, the main beneficiaries of money printing are the banks who benefit through the carry trade. The experience in the US et al. is that the benefits haven’t tended to flow down to those who need it. So, the implication from experience in the US is that if the left approves of printing money, they also approve of making bankers richer.

Mallard is right to stick the boot in. Printing money is stupid in an economy with a positive interest rate. The first step would be to drop interest rates.

Nope.

ZIRP internationally means that lowering our rates will have no effect.

Anyway, the main beneficiaries of money printing are the banks who benefit through the carry trade. The experience in the US et al. is that the benefits haven’t tended to flow down to those who need it.

Nope. You don’t follow the US example and give the printed cash to the banks. You have the Government spend the cash directly into the productive economy, bypassing the banks.

“ZIRP internationally means that lowering our rates will have no effect.”

Completely wrong. Over recent times our currency has proven sensitive to even the potential for the Reserve Bank to alter our interest rates by a few points. So a zero rate policy would have a major hit on our exchange rate, and make imports such as petrol etc much more expensive.

“You have the Government spend the cash directly into the productive economy, bypassing the banks.”

The money still ends up in the hands of the banks, even if it is indirectly. So, you can’t avoid that one. Also, printing money would definitely hit our exchange rate big time, so imports would be way more expensive, having a major affect on the poor.

In the USA the various international Mafia, and all their connotations, and Drug Cartels are the main beneficiaries from the printing of money.
More cash more for them to cream.
So much crime depends upon the Greenback as currency.

“Completely wrong. Over recent times our currency has proven sensitive to even the potential for the Reserve Bank to alter our interest rates by a few points.”

You have a short memory then ts, I can remember the last housing bubble like it was yesterday, we watched the reserve bank increasing interest rates quarterly to try and cool the property market with little or no effect, then as we know the whole house of cards collapsed. Remember?

Normans idea of printing money is a good one and in time I suggest he will be proven right, lets hope it will happen. Now the banks will do everything in there power to see this doesn’t happen, because at the moment we basically let them, the banks, print the money, then we let them loan that money and charge interest on that it, which creates a shortage of money because the interest charged has to come from somewhere, not to mention inflation, yes they, the banks take the risk, but what risk? as we have seen they are to big to fail.

CVIf inflationary pressures build unduly, just increase savings rates for the top 50% of the population
Would this be done under a compulsory superannuation scheme, which would give the government power to enforce this smoothing of the economy?

many ways of doing it, and that’s one. Make KiwiSaver compulsory for instance, and adjust the % contribution as required. Or increase taxes targetting wealth and higher incomes. Or making term deposit rates for longer terms more attractive, making people lock away their money for longer.

Driving down property values in the top half of the market also makes people feel poorer so they will spend less and save more.

I suggest you go back and read your own link, specifically the last couple of paragraphs, you are wrong about printing money,

There are 3 identified problems in the NZ economy that printing money would alleviate,

(1), Affordable housing, housing built with printed monies becomes totally affordable whether that housing is State owned rentals or on-sold as home ownership with the Government acting as the mortgage holder,

(2), printing a ‘sane’ amount of NZ$ into the economy by building affordable housing with the printed monies will dilute the currency and lower the price of the NZ$,

(3),building affordable housing with printed monies will create employment throughout the economy,

Printed money is not the inflation devil as the Brit Lord happens to point out, by simply printing and spending such monies into the economy with full regard to the Reserve Bank’s inflation targets band, in my opinion 1 to 2 billion dollars annually of printed monies would be sufficient to lower the NZ$ value over time to 70-75 cents against the US$, and provoke annual inflation lower than 1% while providing ongoing employment to 1000’s,

Doing the above keeps the banks paws well out of the way of being the main beneficiary of printed monies…

Actually, one of the main benefits of the government printing money with zero interest and spending it into the economy is that it helps stop those with far too much money from getting interest and thus living as parasites.

Mike already beat you to “Don’t criticise Mallard on the Standard you iz John Key fan!!11!”.

[lprent: Actually gs didn’t say that. I was rather amused by his analysis. I’m rather interested in where Trevor found his new found expertise in economics myself. But I guess I’ll find that out when I have time to read the links. ]

But will they? People might just stick to viewing National as the only “safe” option, seeing as any Left-wing coalition is looking increasingly laughable as Labour fixates their attacks first on themselves and then their potential partners rather than addressing the incredible hash National are making of things

No, everyone knows that the Titanic is unsinkable, so having the very best deck chairs is their obsession now – and if it does sink, they’ll hang on to those splendid chairs right until it reaches the bed of the Atlantic, knowing that they deserved them all along.

@ bad12…yeah we can live in hope. Just getting a tad difficult to believe. I just wish they would start attacking the main offender, who really is doing a lot of offending and lay off their own side. This is getting laughable.

Lol, i don’t disagree with you, i was over on ‘open mike’ saying to someone how negative it was to keep on giving Shearer stick when this post went up,

Such crap from Mallard tho is indefensible and how can a coalition be built on the basis of such contempt,

It’s not like Russell Norman is proposing anything radical considering what is occurring in economies right now,

Does Trevor perhaps propose that we all sit here head in sand until the NZ$ hits $1.20c against the US$, watch everything go tits up then including the tourist industry, that would be fun, messy but fun,

I have the sneaking suspicion that certain heads within Labour would like nothing more than a ‘urgent’ airport type Lange/Douglas meeting where ‘there is no alternative’ than to devalue the NZ$ by regulation,

Perhaps that’s why Trevor is being openly abusive, its a bit hard to use TINA when someone has been proposing a logical alternative publicly for ages…

Yes, it was getting a bit repetitive re Shearer criticism, (I do believe this was lobbying re the leader vote, therefore served a purpose) however the Labour caucus’s behaviour is getting even more tedious. Its not like there isn’t a wealth of fodder for criticism with this current Government.

Your sneaking suspicion is horribly believable. Lots of things are becoming horribly believable with this Government and these antics of the main opposition party. One has to question; what are they on?

I agree with Mike – why all the anti-Labour shit on this site? Astounding and totally counter-productive. Was looking through a couple of old ‘Standard’ newspapers I have, as well as a few of the Labour Party Journals. Surprise surprise, not one anti-Labour comment at all. In fact, it was about spreading the word in a positive fashion. Hmmm. Not a bad idea me thinks.!

[lprent: It is a “labour movement” site, not a Labour party site. It is in the about. And politics is running under a MMP environment with multiple parties of the left.

For some reason not being restricted to having a single viable left party in parliament does kind of shift the debate. If you’d lifted your gaze back into the earlier decades of last century before the first Labour government you’d have seen a rather different story. Removing the restriction of forced monolithic governments will cause more parties and more arguments between them and their supporters.

But you could also ask yourself why there are so few unions and union members now affiliated with the NZLP. I personally know that some of the unionists hold and held some rather strong views on it. ]

Were those Standard newspapers proclaiming things like the 40 hour work week with penal rates for overtime, compulsory unionisation, government building power stations, forests, railways, roads and houses itself, the importance of the Govt starting and owning the rural bank, state insurance, the societal value of free education for all, etc.

Dead right, astounding the number of wallies who think being left is a tribal thing rather than something based on fundamental principles. They can’t fathom that when the leaders of the traditionally true left start acting like right wingers that you’d question them.

This isn’t a Labour Party blog, Stuart, it’s a labour movement blog, an unruly collection of voices from the left. And historically we idealistic lefties have never been a particularly cohesive force (alas).

Having said that, yeah I find the Labour bashing a bit over the top a lot of the time too. We’ve built a useful little forum here – I wish we could figure out how to use it constructively.

Honestly, r0b, if you’ve got any suggestions which don’t boil down to “shut up about Labour’s failings”, I would be happy to hear them.

In the mean time, here we go again with another example of a senior Labour MP dumping on Labour’s most likely coalition partner. I guess next time there’s a poll out and everyone wants to trumpet the impending victory of the “Left bloc” we’ll just pretend this never happened?

Maybe some of us are operating under the ~craaaaaaazy~ assumption that offering free advice on what they’re doing wrong might help. This is the problem, r0b: people keep saying “be constructive” and all I hear is “go through the proper channels! Proper private channels which no one else can see!” which … boils down to “shut up about Labour’s failings”.

You say people “love to endlessly talk about Labour’s failings” as though we’re doing this for fun, r0b. It’s actually not any fucking fun to watch the Best Great Hope of NZ leftwing politics continually screw the pooch for no greater apparent reason than “because Trevor thinks it’s a good idea, and also a lot of people hate David Cunliffe”.

Why the fuck am I going to put any effort into getting “actively involved” in a party whose advocates continually make it clear that they are uninterested in critique, refuse to get involved in the online conversation, and only think a person’s opinion is valuable if they’ve coughed up a subscription fee and had the time and resources to stick up some hoardings?

Inside and outside is a false dichotomy. Many are involved in both. That said, I wouldn’t describe this post as “opposition” to Labour. It’s opposition to Trevor Mallard’s idiocy. I think that r0b and Stuart should ask themselves why they feel the need to turn criticism of Trevor into criticism of Labour as a whole.

As I sometimes have to tell the trolls, argue the post, not the author, and not some strawman version of the post. Which is to say let’s hear some of you party stalwarts (and I use the term loosely – my time in the party probably goes back further than most of you) explain just why having Trevor slagging off Russel Norman on twitter is a good idea.

I don’t like his unwarranted smugness and I commented in my usual diplomatic way on his fb site when he made a similar negative posting before xmas. Trevor is part of the problem; I don’t see him being part of the cure.

If half the people who love to endlessly talk about Labour’s failings got actively involved and tried to fix those failings, the world would be a better place, don’t you think?

Been there, done that, have tee-shirts. Problem is that it gets rather difficult motivating yourself to keep battering your head against a thick-wall. Trevor’s latest twitter commentary on economics does rather exemplify the problem. Perhaps you could tell me why he thought it was useful?

I am rather puzzled, even after reading it. What the fuck he was thinking about? It really doesn’t make any sense at a economic level or at a political level. Perhaps Trevor should leave economic arguments to the David Parker?

r0b, I think all the non-Labour bashing posts of late is a good way for you to redress the balance. But there are many people here who aren’t in the Labour party and who never will be, and I’m not sure what we can do about the situation that is constructive. For GP members it’s like watching a very slow lead up to a train wreck (in 2014).

Lolz i commented the same thing a week or so ago and got an earful of invective for my troubles,

I would suggest Trev in His dotage actively pines for the time when, Winston as a pliable Foreign Affairs Minister, Trev sitting as god’s right hand,

My thought is that the Green Party might want to consider sitting out-side of a minority Labour Government and dictate to them clause by clause on every bit of Legislation that could only be passed by the passing of specific pieces of Green Party Legislation,

The Green Party sitting round a Cabinet table with the likes of Jones and Mallard in it are asking to get screwed over and then painted by Labour and the media as the baddies in any coalition spills which result…

It does seem like the Labour old guard would work with the GP through gritted teeth.

“My thought is that the Green Party might want to consider sitting out-side of a minority Labour Government and dictate to them clause by clause on every bit of Legislation that could only be passed by the passing of specific pieces of Green Party Legislation,”

Apparently people don’t like this because it’s an unstable govt, and the GP can be seen to be holding the govt to ransom. Myself, it seems an appropriate response to a Labour Party that is still unwilling to play nice.

How the GP manages post-election negotiations will be one of the most interesting aspects of the next cycle.

The danger for the Green Party is to enter a coalition with Labour getting a couple of ‘token’ Ministerial positions along with some increased budget for the Ministries and this then being used as leverage to gain acceptance of the Green MP’s staying largely silent on alternatives to Labour’s policies,

That as has been repeatedly shown by the slow death of other political party’s will simply gut the support of the Green Party that is more focused upon Green Party social and economic issues,

The attitude of first Mallard, and latterly Stuart Nash right here in the pages of the Standard would tend to suggest that the Green Party may have more to lose being ‘in Government’ with Labour than any gains it may accrue,

The amusement of having the likes of Stuart Nash enter the pages of the Standard to mount an unsubstantiated attack upon the Green Party is that while Labour were definitely not getting my Party vote in 2014 they were pretty much assured of my electorate vote,

Take a bow Stuart Nash, your reward for such a stellar performance here in the pages of the Standard today means that Labour will certainly NOT even have my electorate vote…

Voting anything other than Labour in winnable electorate seats is Tory enabling*. That’s a fact. For example: Paula Benefit. If it wasn’t for Tory enabling Greens, she’d already be in the dustbin of history. Same in 8 or 9 other seats. This is a blog written by, commented on and read by intelligent people. They don’t need to be mollycoddled or condecended to, at least as I see it. If a self described lefty chooses an option that helps the Tories, then shame on them and I’ll be fucked if I won’t call that shit for what it is.

Cheers, blue. There might be a guest post in it, dya reckon? It’s going to be an issue in the next election too. The left needs to work together and box clever if we are going to rid NZ parliament of the likes of Bennett, Kaye and Dunne.

I think that the problem might be that people don’t “get” it, more than any message The Greens were sending out.

Prior to the last election I found myself explaining this issue re who to vote for in the electorate vote, quite a few times, to those openly telling me they intended to vote Greens. It took a surprising amount of explaining, yet once they realised the consequences, were thankful that I told them (…and I was thankful I did too!)

When I first read your response I was surprised because I had checked out this issue after the election, yet I must have missed a lot, (or the earlier results were different?) because at that time there didn’t seem to be any areas where it would have made any difference (when Green electorate votes are added to Labour there still wouldn’t have been a win for Labour).

re guest post I guess the more repeating of the issue the better, and would be interesting to know how many electorates were compromised.

Both did damage, but Mana’s 300 electorate votes were a sixth of the Green vote. However, more people voted for Bradford in the electorate seat than party voted Mana, so, yes, it could be said that long time beneficiaries advocate Sue Bradford is responsible for the worst Welfare Minister in a generation, which would be pretty ironic.

So what?. She is the electorate MP for Waitakere, which means a significant population of workers and beneficiaries have no one to speak for them. If you have anything to say on the wider point I’m making lets hear it. Or just stick to pedantry if that makes you feel better.

“which means a significant population of workers and beneficiaries have no one to speak for them” – what, you think the only person who can do that is their electorate MP? Again, learn how our system actually works.

“Voting anything other than Labour in winnable electorate seats is Tory enabling*. That’s a fact.”

No it’s not. It’s only true where National and Labour are close and voting for the GP or Mana puts the seat at risk for the left. If it’s a safe Labour or National seat, then electorate voting for Mana or the GP is a valid choice.

Please get out, in disguise if necessary and talk to the people in your area. I think you will be hard pushed to find any that find it a good idea for Labour to focus on either themselves or their most likely coalition partner when it comes to attacks. Are you really that disengaged?

From where I’m standing, this is yet another in a series of seriously idiotic stuff coming out of Labour.

If the Labour caucus started paying more attention to their duty as an opposition party ~that is, critiquing the current government~ and resolved to resist the clearly terrific temptation of attacking themselves or their nearest and dearest, then you might find your wish is granted and more praise and less criticism would be forthcoming. This really is a case of a very simple cause and effect relationship.

You know what, I actually agree. I have been critical of the job Labour has been doing in its role of holding the government to account, and I believe they need to be far more effective. Chippie has been doing a great job recently with education, and now we need others to follow Chippie’s lead and go hard against the govt in a whole lot of areas.

As for talking to people in my area: that’s what I do (in fact too much – have a real passion for building a better NZ but it doesn’t pay the mortgage) and I very much know what the issues are that good hard working NZers find important.

But I suppose if you think the Labour caucus is failing the cause, then sites like this really need to pick up the batan and go very hard (and I acknowledge that this is often the case), but hard against the govt.!

One thing I would say is that the Greens are endlessly bashing Labour, and they have publicly acknowledged that their votes predominately come from traditionally Labour voters. Yes, they are likely to be Labour’s coalition partner in a 2014 government, however, that doesn’t mean we let them have a free ride at Labour’s expense. Personally, I think a number of the Green’s ideas are nutty and others just plain impracticable, and they need to be held to account along with all parties vying for labour’s votes and voters.

So I (for example) ought not to pen posts that are critical of anything Labour says or does – or that seeks to have them account for themselves. I ought to focus all criticism on the present government. I ought to become a cheerleader for a pack of politicians that, for good demonstratable reasons, I have no faith or trust in.

But those same people you think I ought to be cheerleading for are quite right to criticise the party they would go into coaltion with if they managed to pull out of their ‘just not looking electable’ nose dive.

Indeed, Bill, your comment is unreal. It doesn’t seem relate to what Nash is saying and puts words in his mouth. Nash hasn’t asked you to become a cheerleader, or to stop posting about Labour. Nor does he ask you to focus all criticism on the present Government.

However, Nash makes the valid point that we (the wider TS community) should be putting the boot into National if we don’t feel Labour are up to the job. He’s not wrong. The wailing and flailing about the leadership non issue has been a wasteful distraction and the regular pep talks from Hooten confirm for me that much of the anti-Labour posts here have done nothing for the left and heaps for the Nats.

No TRP. When someone writes “go very hard (…) but hard against the government!” [my emphasis] the clear fucking implication is to STFU (again – like anyone is going to pay heed to that b/s) and not be critical of the Labour Party.

And will you, as in previous threads, now play the role of the deaf, dumb and blind arse who claims there is no such implication? Well yes. You will. You’re already playing that role in the comment above.

But here you go. In the interests of keeping it simple and politely ignoring the disingenuous content of your previous comment , let me put it this way for you. If ‘that person over there’ isn’t up to the task they’ve taken responsibility for – and if my well being relies on them being up to said task – should I give them a free ride? Or should I give them arseholes and attempt to be shot of them?

Second option. Every time. Suggesting otherwise is to be offensively insulting.

Point missed, Bill, and your second para is simply not true of me. Or if you genuinely think that, please provide a cite or two. I accept there is an implication that to focus on National might mean less focussing on Labour, but big whoops. It’s about time we moved on from bleating and started getting organised.

The LP needs to improve, but all stick, no carrot doesn’t work. Now I appreciate that there are some authors to whom the word disengenious might apply, beacuse their posts appear intended to harm Labour while being disguised as concern for t’members. I don’t think you fit into that category, and if I remember correctly, you are at least a paid up member of the LP so you have every right to demand improvement in their performance if you are going to be asked to door knock, telephone or just provide dosh in the next election campaign.

But continuing to do the Tories work for them is not going to help get a ‘purer’ left Government elected. It’s just going to entrench the awful one we’ve got. It’s also making the Standard a boring read, IMHO. Frankly, TS has had nothing much new to say since conference. Another two years of whingeing about Shearer, Mallard etc isn’t going to do the left any good. Getting stuck into the real enemy might. Unless of course you think the LP is the real enemy, but that would be terribly infantile and imagine you’re not stuck in that particular political silo.

I have refrained on commenting on the many posts re the Labour Party leadership etc over recent weeks/months because I have had other priorities I have had to deal with. But I have been a reader over that period.

I have been a Labour voter for many decades – and have recently become a member but I am beginning to reconsider that move now that the Feb vote has been and gone (nowhere).

While I am pleased to see a few Labour MPs, and some now ex-ones – ie Stuart Nash – finally coming on TS and thank them for that, somehow it is the same old, same old. For example, this from para 2 of Stuart’s comment at 8.5.1

“… and I very much know what the issues are that good hard working NZers find important. ”

I was a good hard working NZer for many decades, paying my dues/taxes under the social contract – but then like a lot of others on here, became “a beneficiary” .

The silence/avoidance in respect of those (other than children living in poverty)who are beneficiaries from Labour is deafening – other than the bene painting his roof and other such examples.

“… and I very much know what the issues are that good hard working NZers find important. ”

As opposed to bad, lazy New Zealanders?

I find that repeated dog-whistle really, really offensive. From the point of the view of the rich, the poor exist to frighten the middle class, and people come to hate what they fear becoming. It’s utterly shameful that someone representing Labour could consciously exploit that fear and hate.

I was a good hard working NZer for many decades, paying my dues/taxes under the social contract – but then like a lot of others on here, became “a beneficiary”

I suspect that you may be something like a zombie – previously a decent, respectable person, but now a shambling, repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation.

However I, like an actor, regularly find myself “resting” between contracts. That means that I’m constantly shifting between “good hard-working New Zealander” and ravening beast, like a werewolf.

You may look a bit grey, smell bad and have bits falling off, but some makeup, deodorant and glue will have you looking almost normal. I, on the other hand have to spend a fortune on shirts and pants as I rip them to shreds every full moon.

Why is it a “good call” blue leopard? Basically Rhinocrates is again criticizing somebody for what they haven’t written.

For instance; If I say I like Vincent van Gogh does it automatically mean I hate Salvador Dalí? Similarly, Stuart Nash saying he supports workers doesn’t mean he has a negative opinion of beneficiaries.

Calling it a dog whistle doesn’t change the fact that such an obvious logic failure is an argument from fallacy. Likewise judging Labours entire policy concerning welfare because of one comment is entirely disproportionate to the situation.

In fact such an argument is dominant throughout this thread, and is more commonly known as a straw man. If the best the anti-Labour faction on The Standard can come up with are ad hominems and strawmen arguments, they certainly shouldn’t gain anybody’s praise, let alone the attention of any MPs.

Just to set the record straight… Labour has not exploited peoples fear of becoming poor and saying Stuart Nash is a “repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation” is just as repugnant as Rhinocrates statement that David Shearer should be stabbed in the eye with a screwdriver.

The good call was the commentary that Rhinocrates makes re being on a benefit, conveys the feeling of what one contends with when on a benefit extremely accurately and the way Rhinocrates has done that is very skillful; figuratively and managing to expose some underlying attitudes going on in society, &/or political.

Sorry I didn’t explain myself to the nth degree, yet it was so clear to me, I thought it would be to anyone.

…saying Stuart Nash is a “repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation”~Jackal
No such thing was said about Mr Nash, I suggest reading comments carefully before attacking.

If the best the anti-Labour faction on The Standard can come up with are ad hominems and strawmen arguments, they certainly shouldn’t gain anybody’s praise, let alone the attention of any MPs.

Take a good look at what you are trying to achieve here, Jackal, you are playing into right-wing spin in a big way.

McFlock,
I don’t quite understand who you are referring to here, yet if you are referring to my comment:

“…saying Stuart Nash is a “repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation”~Jackal
No such thing was said about Mr Nash, I suggest reading comments carefully before attacking.”

Please read Veutoviper’s comment and Rhinocrate’s.

Rhinocrates was quoting Veutovipers “I was a good hard working NZer for many decades, paying my dues/taxes under the social contract – but then like a lot of others on here, became “a beneficiary”
And thus the bit about a corpse was referring to Veutoviper, not Mr Nash; not an insult, a commentary on attitudes toward people receiving welfare.

“…judging Labours entire policy concerning welfare because of one comment is entirely disproportionate to the situation.”

Labour’s judged on its welfare policy because of all the right-wing legislative changes it made between 1999 and 2008 and its failure ever since, despite being asked time and time again, to say anything to the contrary, whether admit they got it wrong, apologise or distance itself from it even one tiny little bit. You need to read more.

Labours failure to implement better welfare policies since 2008 is because they’re not the government Mary. Just in case you weren’t aware, National won the election in 2008… How exactly is Labour meant to make legislative changes when we have John Keys right wing government calling the shots?

Labour has admitted that they got some of their welfare policies wrong… In particular was an apology in 2011 concerning working for families tax credits, which Labour has said they will extend to beneficiaries. They have also said they will increase paid parental leave from 14 to 26 weeks.

Jackal, I cannot believe your response. You need to read what I said again.

Firstly, I said that Labour introduced right-wing welfare reform between 1999 and 2008. Since then they’ve been asked many many times about whether they still subscribe to the ideas underpinning those changes to which their responses have almost always been silence. I did not say that Labour since 2008 had the ability to repeal those changes. I said that they have not in any way resiled from the position upon which those changes were made. That’s still the case today.

Secondly, you refer to Labour saying that they’d extend WFF to beneficiary families. You seem to be doing precisely what you criticised Rhinocrates for yesterday: “…judging Labours entire policy concerning welfare because of one comment is entirely disproportionate to the situation.” Labour’s so-called change of heart over WFF is just one small blip compared to the raft of nasty, fundamental changes it made to the Social Security Act between 1999 and 2008. On top of this, of course, is Labour’s track record of flip-flopping on probably every announcement made when in opposition regarding positive change to social security since the benefit cuts in 1991. While it’d be great to know that what Labour says it will do, recent history in the area of support for the poor make the odds pretty low, in fact ridiculously low.

I said that they have not in any way resiled from the position upon which those changes were made. That’s still the case today.

In that case you’re wrong! Labour has clearly made changes concerning their welfare policies, as you would know if you had bothered to follow the link and properly comprehend the article I provided.

Labour’s so-called change of heart over WFF is just one small blip compared to the raft of nasty, fundamental changes it made to the Social Security Act between 1999 and 2008

What a load of rot! The example I provided already proves your statement is incorrect. However there are many other press releases and policy announcements by Labour that also prove you are entirely wrong Mary.

” I suspect that you may be something like a zombie – previously a decent, respectable person, but now a shambling, repulsive corpse that’s a threat to civilisation.”

LOL!

Maybe to some people – but not to me! While I have much more time available – and much less money – my brain is not yet dead, my general health is much better, I have many years of experience behind me, and I seem to be almost as busy as I was when I was working very long hours.

“Busy” means I seem to spend a lot of time putting that experience and knowledge doing things for other people. For example, attending and facilitating WINZ visits for several friends and others who need help with these. Most of them were also “hard working NZers” but are now sickness beneficiaries. Some of them are able to do things like paint their roofs – but only when they are in a good space in terms of their physical or mental health disabilities. However, the nature of their health is such that they could no longer cope with full-time work as their ability to do things changes from day to day. That is why I was so disgusted with Shearer’s painting the roof remarks – and remain so due to the lack of any retraction or apology or focus on improving the situation for beneficiaries.

The obvious answer to that RedLogix is that most Labour and Greens supporters have lots in common because the two parties hold many similar values.

The issue here is how Labour and the Greens should vie for the same voters, and clearly little twitter arguments are not beneficial to either party.

Care to argue which ones and why you think they are nutty?

Personally I think Metiria Turei coming out and saying the public wanted a four year electoral cycle was a bit silly to say the least… Although I don’t think Nash was referring to that specifically.

While Labour remains above all criticism?

Isn’t that a false dichotomy? I mean clearly the answer is that all political parties should be held to account by the public and other political parties… Why, in your opinion, should the Greens be above such accountability?

One thing I would say is that the Greens are endlessly bashing Labour, and they have publicly acknowledged that their votes predominately come from traditionally Labour voters.

Maybe if Labour wants “traditional Labour voters” to vote for it, it should consider standing with policies that “traditional Labour voters” will like.

Traditional Labour voters walked away from Labour in droves through the 1980’s and 1990’s. Check the membership numbers the Labour Party had in 1980 versus 2010. A few came back in the H1 years, but AFAIK the party never made a big effort to bring them back into the fold, choosing instead to chase down the middle class swing voter with strong incomes and property investment aspirations.

No, my comment in reply to CV was the joke. CV said Labour should look to policies that “traditional Labour voters” would like. I replied that the roofer anecdote was probably an attempt to do exactly that. ie I was suggesting that “traditional labour voters” have moved to the right.

It shouldn’t be assumed that Enrolled Non Voters or the unenrolled would all vote Labour, but its likely the majority would be better off under a labour led goverment. Particularly the unenrolled, as they are tend to be on the margins of society.

But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that “traditional labour voters” haven’t bought into Dunnokeyo’s aspirational bullshit. Clearly they did, and still do.

If the roof-painter anecdote was an “attempt to do exactly that” i.e. get “traditional Labour votes, then those working on Labour strategy really are incompetent. Do you realise that is what can be inferred by what you are saying here TRP?

“No, my comment in reply to CV was the joke. CV said Labour should look to policies that “traditional Labour voters” would like. I replied that the roofer anecdote was probably an attempt to do exactly that. ie I was suggesting that “traditional labour voters” have moved to the right.”

Meh, if that’s what you were suggesting then it wasn’t really a joke. Which may go some way to explaining why no-one seems to have taken it as one.

I’m not sure how the evidence to judge such a claim could be gathered, but let’s imagine it’s true. The question then becomes, ‘why did it happen?’

Part of it may be a change in our economic environment arising from the 80s ‘reforms’. You know, the idea that large numbers of public sector and factory workers all became small business people when the public sector was privatised and when manufacturing was gutted by financial deregulation, dropping of import controls, and the like. They then have shifted their values to ‘aspirational’ ones and their voting shifted to align with these new, perceived interests.

It was, of course, a Labour government that did that – changed the economic environment. This suggests that Labour re-engineered the economic environment to deprive itself of electoral support. Not very wise.

It would be even less wise for a Labour Party to continue, decades later, to advocate for similar policies, (and to leave such policies in place) as that would simply catch it up in a strangely prolonged act of electoral suicide via starving itself of its ‘natural’ voters.

I’m assuming here that Labour stands for more than a particular colour of vehicle in which to achieve a political career – perhaps gullibly, I still think it is more than that.

Another part of the explanation may simply be that nature abhors a vacuum. If no powerful narrative that directly challenges the “aspirational bullshit” is being pushed by the major, supposedly left opposition party then what else do struggling working class (in or out of a job) and low income people have to cling to?

The failure of the current Labour Party, as I see it, is that no-one appears to have a passionate conviction of the ‘rightness’ of a left wing analysis of the world or confidence in their own ability to project it in a way that will appeal to ‘traditional Labour voters’.

If they do have that passion, they appear convinced that the message is entirely unpalatable to a significant block of voters who ‘should’ be voting Labour. But, don’t you see? Thinking that way may well be the problem.

In a nutshell, I think Labour’s caucus lack courage and conviction – and/or the ability to articulate, in an electorally appealing way, the underlying values of the left.

It may be hard but it is not impossible. What it requires, at base, is an utterly clear and precise awareness of the value, moral basis and truth of a left analysis of this world. When you have that you’d be amazed how the creative ability to make that awareness resonate with ordinary people just follows like night follows day.

Then again, maybe it’s just that too many people in Labour today are either educated, middle class people who haven’t actually felt – and don’t feel – the reality of being on the sharp end of the operation of power or they are people (men) too impressed with their blokey manner to ever bother educating themselves about the reality of how power grinds people up, day by day.

Where are the self-educated working class people in Labour? You know, the ones who know that what’s needed is more than just strutting about being a ‘bloke’ or, conversely, getting a degree and a house in a nice suburb.

The ones who know that this is a fight for what fundamentally matters; a fight for the survival of something very human and very precious. A fight fought so that ordinary people can live lives of dignity and autonomy and, therefore, with the power to hold their own, collectively, against private concentrations of power and wealth.

Where are all these people? Looked down on and ignored in the Modern Labour Party, I suspect.

My favourite stories are the ones told me by young tradies and school leavers attending Young Labour events for the first time, and made to feel like dumb loser drop out shits by the smartass know it all Young Labour scarfies running the meetings, when they questioned the importance of the discussion at hand which was focussed on the relationship between how removing the monarchy might impact on sexuality/gender issues in modern architecture.

Bad, Waitakere voters have no representative. The same is the case in Ak central and in the other close electorates. They are all stuck with an MP who despises them. This matters, as any five your old could tell you. And Labour candidates who would have been good MP’s miss out. Again, check with that 5 year as to how that’s going to affect his or her future. And have a think about what those missing MP’s might have meant in the rejuvenation of Labour. You’re not only giving John Key a hand up, you’re helping keep Trevor Mallard in a position of influence.

Don’t change the conversation as an answer Te Reo, you insult me as a Tory enabler if i don’t vote for Labour in my electorate,

How does not voting for Labour in an electorate seat enable a Tory Government to be formed,

Here let me answer that for you, it doesn’t and you fucking know it,

You are playing a low level intellectual violin that might work on the less aware Te Reo but who is the Rep for Waitakere does not alter by the width of a piece of toilet paper who IS the Government,

As Far as the minister of overseas travel for employment goes it matters not an iota if that particular large ball of ugliness is in or out of the Parliament, National still would have done to beneficiaries exactly what National has done and Labour has hardly a proud record to trumpet in their treatment of those people reliant upon benefits,

But lets get back to the point of the accusation you made and dispense with all the fudging shall we Te Reo,

Exactly how in an MMP electoral system does an electorate vote for other than Labour become an enabler of the National Party when it is the Party vote that counts and we all fucking know that…

Lolz, yeah felix that one knows it too and has attempted to fudge the issue with all the other unrelated rubbish he/she has used to avoid a direct answer,

Stuart Nash’s little diatribes in this post had me ask the question of myself this afternoon over why would i even bother voting for Labour in my electorate,

Te Reo simply reinforces that beleif i have formed that i shouldn’t,

In 1991 i run a van load of people through the Ohariu electorate and every letterbox got an anti-National Party leaflet, they were not pretty to read believe me and they didn’t advocate that the Ohariu electorate vote for anyone in particular,

it would be blowing my ego up far to much to even suggest that this leaflet drop had any effect whatsoever on the voters of the Ohariu electorate, but, since that leaflet drop, a 2 pager, Ohariu has not voted in a National Party candidate,

i hope the likes of Mallard, Nash ,and Te Reo keep up the insults because this has got me seriously thinking that a bit of negative campaigning in this electorate might show me whether or not that leaflet drop way back in 1991 had any effect and learn the 3 stooges a valuable lesson…

Try being a beneficiary in Shearer’s electorate and see how far out on a limb he’ll go for you.

He has been doing pretty well on that front by all accounts. Certainly, in the cases I am aware of and where it was feasible (ie MP’s are no miracle workers capable of the laying of the hands to remove illness, addictions, and an inability to take meds), he has been an effective local MP.

“And nothing whatsoever to do with who forms the govt, which is what you’ve been saying it is.”

Citation needed, felix. I’ve actually been talking about electing electorate MP’s. You may not care who our people have to go to in times of need, but it makes a difference to them. A Tory is going to do nothing, a Labour MP will at least do something. Ask around, the Labour electorate MP’s and their local staff actually work hard for their voters.

How does not voting for Labour in an electorate seat enable a Tory Government to be formed.

Here let me answer that for you, it doesn’t and you fucking know it.

felixviper

Electorate votes make no difference to whether Labour forms a govt or not.

Every one of your comments about “helping John Key” and “enabling tory govts” is entirely erroneous.

You’re talking about the thousands of voters who ticked the Green party candidate in their electorate, which is a completely wasted vote that the Green’s campaigned against having.

If those people had instead ticked Labour in their electorates at the last election, we would not have a National government in power. So it does matter and those people who voted for the Greens in their electorates are in essence enabling National to win.

If for instance even a third of the left wing voters had voted for Jacinda Ardern in Auckland central, instead of 2903 votes going to Denise Roche as the Green party candidate, Labour would have gained a seat from National at the last election… Nicola Kaye’s majority was only 717.

The same cannot be said for the 149 people who voted for Act instead of National in their electorates… Here’s the data.

What was National’s majority again? Electorate or tactical voting as it is more commonly known as can make all the difference.

Yes! The Auckland Electorate was used as an example to show that if the people who wasted their votes on Denise Roche had instead voted for Jacinda Ardern, Labour would have gained one electorate seat.

However the Auckland Electorate is not the only electorate where tactical voting would have given Labour additional electoral seats.

Christchurch Central with a majority of only 47, Ōhariu with a majority of 1392, Waimakariri with a majority of 642, Waitakere with a majority of 9, Tāmaki Makaurau with a majority 936 would all have gone to Labour at the last election if Green supporters had voted tactically… So it does matter.

United Future wouldn’t be present and the Maori party wouldn’t have Pita Sharples… Not really any great lose if you ask me. If either Annette Sykes or Louis Te Kana had not stood, it’s unlikely that Te Ururoa Flavell would have won in Waiariki either… Now what is Nationals majority again?

Yes! Like Peter Dunne and Pita Sharples who wouldn’t be in Parliament if there was more tactical voting by the left in 2011. So that’s two… Now what was the coalition governments majority again? Some legislation is currently passing by only one vote, so to say that electorate votes don’t matter is clearly wrong!

That’s in fact one of the main advantages the right wing has at the moment… That the left wing vote is split between a lot of parties.

“But I suppose if you think the Labour caucus is failing the cause, then sites like this really need to pick up the batan and go very hard (and I acknowledge that this is often the case), but hard against the govt.!”

This is interesting, because I have noticed recently that I have less interest in reading the posts on Mr Key and his merry men, (the latest being his failed promise re the P drug.)

Analyzing this lack of interest I realized that it is absolutely going without saying, for me, these days, that this bunch are entirely incompetent, bumbling goons, in fact seeming increasingly more like saboteurs of NZers interests. In other words, when Mr Key&co lie, try and repress the OIA, make deals that don’t suit NZ interests, undermine our laws, our democracy and our RMA, “forget”, “don’t read”….(the list is endless)…it really isn’t news any more .

I would prefer to read about how a left-wing party has scored a point on this government’s behaviour. This would give me hope.

I believe others must be having similar responses and is why the recent focus on Labour. There is at least a remanent of hope that Labour is actually concerned about the real issues and would address them when they got into power. However that hope is dying too.

The behaviour of “members of caucus” since “two very senior MPs” approached a not-so-friendly member of the media in order to get vitriol written about one of their own, has been absolutely disgraceful, and there doesn’t seem to have been any firm leadership on this, no reprimands…no wait, yes, there was some heavy reprimand, toward one of the members caucus; one who happened to be someone who sent a very clear message on Q&A in the last election-campaign that he was entirely ready and able to take on Mr English and show him up for the worm that he is.

If a member of the NZ Rugby team misbehaves, why is it that they get reprimanded, or even asked to leave? Its about ensuring the integrity of the whole (or dare I say brand). When one or two members misbehave, don’t get reprimanded, and continue to act questionably, I consider this very serious stuff because it is behaviour that is jeopardizing the ideals, that a lot of us want in power, from getting into power. This is a crux of the criticism.

We want these left-wing values in power and what message is this behaviour of members of the Labour caucus sending out? And what is the lack of apologies and no reprimands sending out? Is it a free-for-all?

I’m sure you entirely understand that the issue with the Greens is that left-wing parties need to come across as able to work together stably. Most of the time this is coming across quite well. There is plenty to criticize in this current Government. Focus on that and “you” will give people hope that is not very easy to come by, despite certain spun-&-oh-what-a-surprise-broken-promises of “Brighter Futures”. (Gees, we’re gullible)

(Is “Chippie” Mr Hipkins? Despite coming across dubiously re the whole Cunliffe debacle, he does do well in holding the government to account in parliament, I agree).

Thanks again for your response Mr Nash and here’s hoping that Labour gets it together so that people such as yourself will be able to be in Government after the next election.

Nash is on the fringes of the oligarchy running Labour, not willing to take any advice or council from many posts/commenter’s on TS, just trying to see if they can influence the unruly members/people of the left, scoring points so he can get a pat on the back from his wanky mates..mallard, goff, …another condescending wa…..

Stuart Nash, lets dispense with all these pathetic calls for blind loyalty you might get that from the party faithful in places like Mangere and Porriua, but here where we dissect everything within the political spectrum you can only expect laughter as the least reactive response to such a call,

Here on the Standard there is an unwritten rule that those who make an assertion about ANYTHING when called on to do so must provide the proof to the assertion so made or face the risk of being labelled a bullshit artist for having made the unsubstantiated assertion in the first place,

SO, based upon the Standards unwritten standard i call on you now to provide either the proof or an explanation of your comments attacking the Green Party,

(1), you claim the Green Party is always attacking Labour, proof please,

(2), where have the Green Party publicly aknowledged that their votes come from traditional Labour Party votes, proof please, and do you think the Labour Party OWN voters perhaps,

(3), a free ride at Labour’s expense, don’t bother providing any clarification to that little gem, as i could only expect an increased dose of pathetic invective if you did,

(4), please supply a list of the Green Party’s nutty and impractical ideas and an explanation of why the Labour Party see’s nuttiness and impracticality in such ideas giving us the specifcs,

Thanks for coming Stuart Nash, the only thing you have proved so far with your invective is that i was wrong to be last night calling for commenter’s here to be reasonable about David Shearer as Labour Leader over in ‘open mike’…

How brave Mr Nash.
Responding nearly a month after a comment is made – I guess you think you’ll have the last word if you wait long enough.

Unfortunately for you, here at the Standard – (the one that bad12 was clearly referring to by the way)- there is a side column listing the latest comments, so I doubt this will slide under the radar as you may have preferred.

But even though you knew perfectly well which ‘Standard’ B12 was talking about, do tell – what did the original Standard stand for. Then maybe we can discuss which party in parliament best represents those values

- Compulsory unionisation.
– A 40 hour working week, with penal rates thereafter.
– The Government as a massive builder of socialised housing.
– A universal super age of 60
– The Government as a massive provider of insurance and banking services to the nation.
– Free education for all, including university education.
– Massive state employment of apprentices.
– Full employment.
– Fully funded public non commercial broadcasting.

Tell me Stuart, you know your history, how many of these things does Labour stand for today.

I don’t have the proof bad12 is asking for, although it probably wouldn’t be difficult to find because it’s so bleedin’ obvious. The Greens don’t always attack Labour, but they do so when it’s necessary, and the more neo-liberal market driven disdainful towards the poor Labour become I wouldn’t just expect the Greens to attack Labour I’d criticise the Greens if they didn’t. I don’t know if the Greens have publicly acknowledged that they’ve taken votes from Labour but I’d bet my house on it (if I had a house) because Labour’s become such a right-wing beneficiary-hating bunch of tossers there’s zero chance that the Greens haven’t taken votes from Labour. And bad12’s right – who says Labour “own” what they think is their constituency, anyway. If you think that you’re in fantasy land. A free ride at Labour’s expense? FFS. Does that mean the Greens can’t stand up for their principles in case they hurt poor little Labour? More like nasty bunch of uncaring pieces of poo Labour who deserve everything they get, including for their silence on whether they still believe what they did to the Social Security Act between 1999 and 2008 was good and correct and proper. If you don’t know exactly what they did I suggest you go learn your history. And if you think what the Greens stand for is nutty then what Labour stands for at the moment is a hundred times nuttier because it believes that people who can’t be actively involved in the “economy” to an “acceptable” level to be somehow not worth looking after. You’re entitled to your opinion about how nutty the Greens’ policies are, and I’m entitled to my opinion on how repulsive Labour’s policies are towards “those who can’t quite cut it”. And if you think I’m only talking about Labour’s welfare policies, I’m not. Your hapless leader’s latest recoil on asset sales or at least his gutlessness refusing to say Labour would renationalise says it all. Labour is fucked.

Labour doesn’t have an entitlement to my vote. I choose who and which party to vote for each election.

Parliamentary Labour is doing everything that will result in me continuing to criticise them: the soft neoliberal apologism is the main reason. Shearer still hasn’t renounced his roof painter bennie-bashing, and still continues to dog whistle such an attitude. He still hasn’t renounced his support of private armies. His housing policy still looks like one for the middle-classes.

But, on top of that, all the gender gains under Clark are being turned back. It’s bad enough that Team Shearer has become pretty blokey (reinforced by Mallard saying Shearer’s the kind of guy who you chat with at the footy club). But the idea of resurrecting known homophobe, misogynist and gay-baiter, Tamihere, is way beyond a step too far.

Thus Team shearer look pretty flaky to me, and the Greens and Mana look more like the left should be in the 21st century.

“I thought with the leadership thing put to bed the right would have to get back in the game of showing the left up as the disloyal and incompetent idiots they are.”

Nah, KingKong, because the right continue to be successfully proving, worldwide, that they are disloyal and incompetent idiots they really must continue in their efforts to sabotage those who could create real improvements for the interests of ordinary people.

When New Zealanders get to a point of seeing through the spin of the incompetents then we will deserve to have our interests addressed effectively. I call upon all New Zealanders to start informing themselves so that this day comes swiftly.

A hamster with a broken wheel could do a “great” job with education if gifted the botched Christchurch school closures and Novopay. Funny how it’s only “recently” that the Labour spokesperson has managed to gain any ground.

I wonder how long shearer’s staffers will be able to keep up their new strategy of commenting on the standard. Not long I bet.

[lprent: They don’t read like it to me in their many previous comments (in fact looking at your profile across IP’s, I’d be more suspicious of you). I get irritated with doing fruitless lookups. Use the search before wasting my time. ]

It does raise the very sensible idea of quantitative easing. Someone should explain it to John Key. Trevor would never get it so just give him a drink and sit him in the corner. Make sure he doesn’t piss in the pot plants.

why all the anti-Labour shit on this site? Astounding and totally counter-productive.

Would you be saying the same thing if this site was slagging off the Greens? No, you wouldn’t. I think the author of this particular post is a Green voter Stuart. This is not a Labour Party site. It’s a left of centre site. All left opinions are entitled to be aired. What’s more there are right of centre commentators here too and sometimes they also make valuable contributions.

What is counter productive is the recently unprincipled and silly behaviour of a few members of the Labour caucus. I thought they may have pulled themselves together over the holidays, but it look likes one or two of them still haven’t learned any lessons. They play into the hands of those whose job it is to undermine and discredit and drive wedges between Labour Party members and the caucus MPs – people like Matthew Hooton, David Farrar, Cameron Slater, and throw into the mix a few media journos and talk back hosts. It’s not the people here who provide them with the fodder. It’s your own former colleagues. We simply respond to the fallout.

If you want to see an improvement then talk to those former colleagues of yours – particularly the ones who are creating the trouble. You know who they are.

I acknowledge all you say Anne, and agree with most, but I would just like to see this site as the place where the govt really is held to account for the way it has so badly failed the people of NZ.

There are some incredibly smart people on here (and I have immense respect for LP, who I have known for a while now) but let us never forget who the real enemy is: its not Shearer – or Cunliffe – its Key, Banks and the pricks who have driven up inequality to a dreadful level in this wonderful country we are all so passionate about.

Thank-you Stuart and I agree with your desire to see this site as a place where we hold the govt to account. And that is what the vast bulk of Standardistas want to see too. If you look at the posts and comments over a long period of time you will find 90% of them have been doing exactly that – holding the govt. to account.

But I agree many of us have been distracted in recent times because of the antics of a small handful of Caucus members. It started with the Duncan Garner blog around August last year (where he, in my view, slandered David Cunliffe for supposed disloyalty etc.) and has continued since. It was clear to many of us there was a Judas in the Caucus who was supplying journos with false and/or grossly exaggerated claims about David Cunliffe. It didn’t take us long to figure out who it was – Trevor Mallard. There may have been others, I don’t know, but he appears to have been the prime leaker and, as far as I know, he has never been reprimanded.

The final straw came when Chris Hipkins described Cunliffe during a TV interview just before Christmas as a “fink”. The definition of a fink is: a contemptible person… someone who informs against another person. Well, from my vantage point it looks to me like the boot was on the other foot. It was Trevor Mallard et al who were acting like finks!

When we see a tremendously bright and talented person such as David Cunliffe being banished to the back benches because of some tall poppy-like jealousy on the part of a few of his colleagues, then of course the sparks are going to fly. There is only one way to resolve this issue. David C. must be reinstated to his former position. Then we can get back to doing what we really want to do… hold this truly awful government to account.

“Chippie has been doing a great job recently with education, and now we need others to follow Chippie’s lead and go hard against the govt in a whole lot of areas”, and “Personally, I think a number of the Green’s ideas are nutty and others just plain impracticable, and they need to be held to account along with all parties vying for labour’s votes and voters.”

Then you pretty much say you’d like to see The Standard as a place where the real enemy, Key et al, is attacked instead of Shearer and Cunliffe etc who are not the enemy.

So does that mean we can attack any other party except Labour? On your own logic we need to keep the pressure on Labour, not hold off, especially in, as you say, “a whole lot of other areas”, particularly, as some of us have been saying for a long time now, the social security benefit system. The problem for Labour is that it has gone nowhere near saying anything about it since its latest assault on the Social Security Act in the form of its 2007 amendment, which followed a whole raft of other ant-welfare policies since 1999. For this reason we can only assume that Labour’s position is the same as it was back then, let alone expect an apology from them for getting things so horribly wrong. Those on the Left who have followed the detail of Labour’s attacks on benefits and beneficiaries (which are fundamental, often involving basic cornerstone removing stuff) know that there’s principally no difference between Labour and Nact on their respective approaches, and in lots of ways Labour have shown itself as clearly worse.

So when people from Labour tell us to stop “attacking” them because they’re really our friends and that we should concentrate on the “real” enemy it just reminds me we need to do it all the more. Attacking more than one political party at the same time is possible, you know, and just because Labour’s copping it from the Left doesn’t mean Key et al aren’t getting it as well – just look at The Standard on any day of the year to see proof of that.

Importantly though, when it comes to the issue of how a government and a nation treats its most vulnerable, Labour, along with Key and Joyce and Banks and Collins et al, is our enemy. Labour will continue to be part of that group until it proves otherwise. Personally, I don’t think that will ever happen. That is why I despise the current Labour Party, and what it’s become.

I think what I detest – not above all, but it’s certainly right up there – is people trying to tell me what the fuck to do and what the fuck to think. And the noble defenders of the lost cause that used to be the Labour Party seem to be one trick ponies demanding silence and obedience/loyalty. There’s just nothing beyond that basic bleat. Whether it’s couched in pleading terms or accusory terms, it’s the same old, same old.

So to save you some energy and typing time, I’ll simply say this. It’s not happening. I won’t sit down. I won’t sit back. I won’t shut up.

If the Labour Party wants ‘nice’ commentary then the onus is on the Labour Party to get its shit together and deserve ‘nice’ commentary.

Yeah exactly Bill, i am f**king furious, Mallard and now this bloke Nash have made a fool of me saying on open mike last night that Shearer was it as far as Labour goes so the anti brigade might want to focus upon other things,

Meanwhile while i am saying that this storm breaks and we now have Labour’s silver spoon brigade in here telling us that THEY own our vote,

Lolz i would love to say exactly what i think of Mallard, Stuart Nash, and anyone else from the Labour Party that agrees with their attitudes but to do so would simply invite a serious spanking for being abusive…

Labour Party seem to be one trick ponies demanding silence and obedience/loyalty.

That’s not the case at all… Perhaps you weren’t aware that The Standard was set up to be the left wings answer to counter the right wings Kiwibog and WhaleOil.

It appears to me that Stuart Nash is simply wanting this site to be more focused on attacking the right wing instead of the left wing, which is an entirely justified comment.

[lprent: Almost all of the posts do focus on the right – count them up some time rather than making up your bullshit. There are just a few that have a go at the stupidities in the political parties of the left. But of course there are always people who are so precious that they take any criticism as being personal attacks. You’re one of them. Like you they seem to have this habit of liking to hand it out rather than receiving…

The bulk of the criticism of Labour in these pages comes from comments and is almost entirely from disaffected members and ex-members. I’m afraid that silly statements that there aren’t issues in the left political parties and the caucuses will simply keep the comments coming. Of course if there was some apparent progress dealing with the long standing issues (I have been pointing them out for decades myself) then the criticism would diminish. But if that is happening then it is as glacial as ever.

But I’m uninterested in censoring the comments merely because you find it uncomfortable. And I’m starting to consider that your comments are getting rather close to telling us how to run our site. ]

What he probably really doesn’t like is Labour being attacked by sneaky Green c**ts pretending they have the parties best interest at heart.

Good to see that the Greens have stopped crying during drum circles and are prepared to get down and dirty but if they keep it up, the Mallard and Jones attacks will be just the tip of the iceberg and they will end up with a real bloody nose.

It’s wrong to attack Labour en masse, and you need to define why the so called ABC is right wing and specifically attack those ideals?

It’s also wrong for left wing commentators and bloggers to attack Labour MPs like Stuart Nash who are clearly left wing as well… That kind of bullshit only benefits the right wing.

Personally I think that most of the anti-Labour sentiment is a result of people being dissatisfied with the way things are going under a National government… It’s also a result of right wing agent provocateurs.

One statement doesn’t negate the predominant left wing values within Labours policies felixviper.

The fact of the matter is that the government alone cannot build houses within the current capitalist system. So unless you think the system can entirely change overnight, the government has to use the private sector to build houses.

By privatizing you actually mean increasing home ownership levels, which has a number of social and economical benefits. Ensuring more people have a healthy home to live out their lives in is Socialism, and Socialism is generally thought to be a left wing.

Which “one statement” are you talking about, Jackal? I gave you two. One was about how unemployed kiwis are bludging off of hard working real kiwis, one was about how bloody maarees are pissing off commonsense pakeha real kiwis.

Pure divisive dog-whistle right-wing bullshit both of them.

p.s.selling state-owned assets into private hands is privatisation. By definition. It may happen to be a form of privatisation of which you approve, and that’s fine. But don’t be a fuckwit and pretend it’s not privatisation.

p.p.s. have you not been paying attention? I’m not “attacking labour”. I’m not trying to “negate left-wing values”.

I’m calling out right-wing bullshit wherever it comes from, something you said you didn’t have a problem with me doing.

“The fact of the matter is that the government alone cannot build houses within the current capitalist system. So unless you think the system can entirely change overnight, the government has to use the private sector to build houses.”

There you go again, more right-wing T.I.N.A. bullshit. A determined left wing govt with a long term plan for the country would set up the necessary departments to source the materials and employ the labour and expertise to build whatever they needed to build.

And a determined left-wing opposition would be talking about how they would do that.

And again, it’s fine for you to think that’s a good idea. Argue your points. But don’t patronise me and embarrass yourself pretending market-oriented profit-driven capitalist solutions are in any way left-wing policies.

As if it wasn’t made clear, I was referring to the painter on the roof statement.

I gave you two. One was about how unemployed kiwis are bludging off of hard working real kiwis, one was about how bloody maarees are pissing off commonsense pakeha real kiwis.

Where has any Labour MP stated that ‘unemployed kiwis are bludging off of hard working real kiwis’… And where has any Labour MP said that ‘bloody maarees are pissing off commonsense pakeha real kiwis’?

I can’t actually be bothered debating you felixviper when you’re being so disingenuous!

Please don’t call me disingenuous while you’re pretending you don’t know about either of those well discussed statements

After I’ve written:

As if it wasn’t made clear, I was referring to the painter on the roof statement.

WTF! As previously stated, a single statement does not define Labour’s entire social welfare policy.

What Labour obviously want is for able bodied people to be in employment. That’s not a right wing sentiment, and is in fact beneficial to society and those in employment… It’s therefore usually regarded as socialism.

“It’s wrong to attack Labour en masse, and you need to define why the so called ABC is right wing and specifically attack those ideals?”

Not sure where you have been the past 12 months, but what I’ve been reading on ts is lots of analysis of why the ABCs are right of where Labour should be, and then specifically criticising those ideals. People shorthand to ‘Labour’ but when you read it in context they’re talking about caucus and advisors, not the party as a whole.

“Personally I think that most of the anti-Labour sentiment is a result of people being dissatisfied with the way things are going under a National government… ”

The left wing isn’t under attach Jackal. The Labour caucus is, but there is a good reason for that. Telling people to stop is akin to telling people not to talk about the elephant in the living room. Putting all focus on NACT won’t solve the problem that is in Labour.

It finally dawned on me. I thought you guys were insane with the mindless infighting but now I see it is part of an incredibly ingenious plan.

Getting the losers and freaks on the Standard to hate on Labour gives the sensible centrist voters the impression that perhaps Labour aren’t so crazy or extreme after all.

This allows Labour to reconnect with the centre through the perception that they are a sensible centrist party who’s policy and personnel has angered and disconnected the left wing nutters without having to promise to hang long term beneficiaries and privitise health care.

The left wing isn’t under attach Jackal. The Labour caucus is, but there is a good reason for that. Telling people to stop is akin to telling people not to talk about the elephant in the living room. Putting all focus on NACT won’t solve the problem that is in Labour.

The left wing is always under attack from the right wing… Or hadn’t you noticed?

Public displays of work-place violence, undisciplined, bad behaviour of caucus is sending out a very bad message.

The behaviour of “members of caucus” since “two very senior MPs” approached a not-so-friendly member of the media in order to get vitriol written about one of their own, has been absolutely disgraceful, and there doesn’t seem to have been any firm leadership on this, no reprimands…no public apologies,…no wait, yes, there was some heavy reprimand, toward one of the members caucus; one who happened to be someone who sent a very clear message on Q&A in the last election-campaign that he was entirely ready and able to take on Mr English and show him up for the worm that he is.

If a member of the NZ Rugby team misbehaves, why is it that they get reprimanded, or even asked to leave? Its about ensuring the integrity of the whole (or dare I say brand). When one or two members misbehave, don’t get reprimanded, and continue to act questionably, I consider this very serious stuff because it is behaviour that is jeopardizing the ideals, that a lot of us want in power, from getting into power. This is a crux of the criticism.

We want these left-wing values in power and what message is this behaviour of members of the Labour caucus sending out? And what is the lack of apologies and no reprimands sending out? Is it a free-for-all?

Jackal, I am drawing a parallel with the All-Blacks to point out a very basic concept, not making comparisons between any one particular behaviour. This is a very simple point that I am making manifest and I believe I have made myself perfectly clear.

You asked for an example of the elephant in the room. I gave you one. It appears you are unable to see it. I suggest you go and get your eyes checked.

This is like someone asking for proof that the sky is above and the ground below.

Your comments are coming across as increasingly disingenuous.

There was a very clear and public example of this over the NZLP conference. You may use all the words in the dictionary to argue a point that this was not the case, however I ask you to consider this:

There are many ordinary people who have experienced workplace bullying and once one has experienced this it is very recognisable. It is not in the best interests of any political approach for a party to get anywhere near displaying such for this reason. (That it is so recognisable; even a whiff of it will be incredibly off-putting to ordinary folk).

I really question what you are trying to achieve here and ask, again, for you to question yourself as to what you are trying to achieve and how effective your approach is toward that aim.

If it was a load of tosh, then why did the hounding ensue of Mr Cunliffe, by his own colleagues and the Leader of the caucus? It was the following events that lead me to believe that there must have been truth in it. Please send me the links to the press statement and/or complaint laid by the Labour party for false reporting The Jackal. Its pretty defamatory stuff.

You can run The Standard however you like 1prent, just like Labour can run their political party however they want to as well.

Allowing the law to be breached is not OK. As you don’t seem to be aware of it, here’s exactly what the law states:

Threatening, conspiring, and attempting to commit offences

306 Threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who—
(a) threatens to kill or do grievous bodily harm to any person; or
(b) sends or causes to be received, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing containing any threat to kill or do grievous bodily harm to any person.

I don’t take attacks on various left wing political parties personally and I’m not merely “uncomfortable” with commentators threatening MPs lives on The Standard 1prent.

and when the left gets in and the inequality still exists….People are still in poverty…
Then what? What will your solution be then?

I mean it is not like there haven’t been people living in poverty or the gap between rich and poor expanding during terms of previous Left wing governments in NZ.
Or are you just happy with some sort of halfway house where some people are better off than they would be if National were still in. Yep sure some people are still in poverty but hey its always been that way and we have done a little better than those other idiots on the right so thats justification that we have done a good job, we can of course at this point give ourselves congratulatory slaps on the back, give ourselves another payrise on the taxpayer and forget about those still in poverty that our policies didn’t solve the problem for.

Of course all of this has probably been done by expanding the welfare state through increasing taxes here and there and introducing some new ones. Then there will be policies constraining business and investment, increasing workers rights enabling a few arseholes to use the system to their advantage in order to extract payouts from employers who don’t want the hassle of going to employment court even if they haven’t done anything wrong.

Over time of course you will have pissed off more and more voters and eventually the majority will decide its time for a change and vote National back in who will of course start undoing your welfare policies and replacing them with their own corporate welfare ones…….etc. etc. etc. ……Rinse and repeat over and over and over again.

But lets get back to part of your original post.

“but let us never forget who the real enemy is: its not Shearer – or Cunliffe – its Key”

So when Shearer – or Cunliffe – or Norman or anyone on the left fail to fix the problems who will the enemy be then or will it just always be the leader of the National party because, hey its just simpler that way and people already have enough to worry about just trying to survive in the system.

“but let us never forget who the real enemy is: its not Shearer – or Cunliffe – its Key”

Yes, PB, that’s precisely what happened from 1999. The biggest error of the Left at that time was to ease off on the government in the misguided belief that Labour was our friend or at the very least ‘better than the alternative’. That was an almost fatal bad move on our part. I hope we’ve learned.

The media surely didn’t and we had week’s and week’s of paintergate for instance like it was the biggest fucking disaster the world had ever seen.

Meanwhile John Key is given a hospital pass for his multitude of ignorant statements while the country goes down the neoliberal drain.

Having less poverty is always a good thing and a Labour/Greens coalition is far more likely to increase equality in New Zealand than a National government that’s trying its best to destroy our society.

We’re now rated as a third world country in many statistics thanks to NActMUF’s policies.

We’re now rated as a third world country in many statistics thanks to NActMUF’s policies.

Labour’s as well. Labour was pivotal in implementing neo-liberal and free market approaches in the NZ economy. Then as the housing price bubble expanded extraordinarily rapidly, Labour policies made housing less and less affordable and private debt grew and grew.

I don’t know what’s come over you, but you’ve turned into a real plonker. Maybe you always were one but if that’s the case you certainly had me fooled.

“No activist’s I know ‘eased off on the government’ under Helen Clark.”
You must only know right-wing activists.

“The media surely didn’t and we had week’s and week’s of paintergate for instance like it was the biggest fucking disaster the world had ever seen.”
Yes, definitely right-wing activists.

“Meanwhile John Key is given a hospital pass for his multitude of ignorant statements while the country goes down the neoliberal drain.”
And an ignorant and unchecked Labour-led government will continue to do the same thing next time, just like they did between 1999 and 2008, that is, if we let them, which we certainly did last time. I hope we’ve learned from our big mistake, but somehow I think there are too many around who will prove that we’re not yet up to it, people like you, Mr FPP Jackal.

“Having less poverty is always a good thing and a Labour/Greens coalition is far more likely to increase equality in New Zealand than a National government that’s trying its best to destroy our society.”
Nice work, Einstein, so let’s just say that no matter what Labour do – no matter how more nasty and more right-wing they become – Labour will always be better than National.

I don’t know what’s come over you, but you’ve turned into a real plonker. Maybe you always were one but if that’s the case you certainly had me fooled.

he became hard aligned with the in-power factions of the Labour Party over the last several months, with an eye on getting a leg up into Wellington, one way or another. The ingratiating is quite something to behold.

Well let’s hope they let him in so that the current Labour opposition’s imminent implosion happens sooner than it otherwise would and brings forward the horrendously overdue total rebuild of the Labour caucus.

he became hard aligned with the in-power factions of the Labour Party over the last several months, with an eye on getting a leg up into Wellington, one way or another. The ingratiating is quite something to behold.

I’ve never even met any current Labour MPs, so don’t pretend to know who I am.

[RL: I started to find this whole thread very boring and unattractive quite sometime ago. It’s ok and healthy to thrash things through, but given the tone and direction of all this personally I cannot see any further good coming of it for anyone. Time to wrap this up gracefully … before a moderator does it for you.]

I don’t believe I’ve breached any rules by saying CV is lying RL, and I’m not responsible for how unattractive this whole Hatin’ on the left thread has become.

[RL: I wasn’t directing that moderation solely to you Jackal. The total comments on this post are now over 400 comments long and it’s been flogged to death by lots of people…and at some stage the pointless personal bickering will be brought to an end. It’s not constructive or useful for anyone. ]

As an addendum, I do suspect that some bright spark, between squeezing zits, has said “If we position ourselves in the public’s perception more to the right, we can go into coalition with the Greens and maybe Mana and let them put forward more genuinely ‘Left’ policies” without frightening off all those millions of voters that we’ll suddenly pick up in Remuera.”

That all looks dreadfully clever, except that for the sake of appearances, PseudoLabour will let a real left bill go through to its second reading and then suddenly stomp on it, and the thicker MPs such as Mallard, and Cthulhu help us, Jones and (gack) Tamihere will have a rush of testosterone to the head and attack it right away and be condoned by the old guard because it will show that PseudoLabour are “responsible” and “moderate”.

Hi lprent, point taken, but I did assume that my hyperbole would be taken as such, rather like Helen Clark’s comment that she’d like to taser him? Who here really would have the ability to hack a drone? I didn’t advocate a “realistic” attack (with a knife or an eggbeater or whatever)… but, yes, I do confess to blurring the lines.

Just more of the gentle levity and familiarity that will encourage caucus members to listen to any opinions, criticisms, or (to use QoT’s description) “free advice on what they’re doing wrong” expressed here.

This is a public forum, and at anytime a member of the caucus can read whatever is written here, on any thread, and if they haven’t done so to prepare, and thus readied themselves for the worst, I really don’t think they are in the right line of work. Whilst I agree that some courtesy be afforded toward our politicians, there is no need to be considering them delicate wee wallflowers. Have you watched the parliament channel?

And do you see how much they listen and give reasoned consideration to the opinions of members of other parties?

That was my point. Merely an observation. A chunk of folk here bitch that labour caucus members don’t come here for the “free advice” enough (of course, the Green and Mana leadership seem to visit here less often than Labour, but what the hey), while one or two nutbars make hyperbolic threats or simply throw abuse without context.

I’m sorry, but saying they should harden the fuck up simply ensures you are doing your part of any lack of engagement.

I neither complained that members don’t come here for “free advice” (I think paid members of the Labour party will read these pages, they would be foolish not to; it is free feedback).
Nor did I say they “should harden the fuck up”.

While I didn’t attribute the first comment to you, the lack of quotation marks around “harden the fuck up” (a punchline of an australasian comedian) indicates it was not a direct quote, merely a paraphrasing of a position that dripped in sarcasm. Labour MPs should put up with that shit, because they get “free advice” and the House is much worse. You know what, I’m not sure too many MPs joke about killing each other. And the one close case that springs to mind, a number of Labour MPs were quite upset by it. But then that’s the difference between our PM and most Labour caucus members.

But then of course you demonstrate the blinkers I was talking about, anyway: Labour MPs would be foolish not to come here for the “free feedback”, yet you ignore the fact that some of this “feedback” involves threats. Threats that are not serious, but still unappealing. Not to mention outright abuse.

How about YOU get it together. Labour might have much to be desired, but engagement takes two to tango, and only needs one person to poo on the dance floor to ruin the night.

Yeah, I read that.
Took it to be sarcasm, given that we were talking about a threat to kill, even if “not serious”. You wouldn’t get a wee twinge of “why bother with these donkeys” if someone said that about you?

Or do you think that MPs should put up with that sort of shit, just for the pleasure of our glorious and perfect free advice?

And why isn’t our free advice glorious and perfect? Politicians in a democracy are representatives.

Also, Miss Manners, a clearly facetious suggestion that Mallard be subjected to a drone strike is terrible, yet saying outright that I support genocide – something I have never expressed and which is a serious slur on my character, is fine. Hypocritical, much?

That means they should support the policies they were elected on. Not that they’re at the beck and call of self-inflated blogsite commenters.

It’s the difference between “public servant” and “personal servant”. And to make things worse, you obviously follow the Naomi Campbell school of personal staff relations.

edit: I seem to recall my line of logic was that you preferred doing nothing about a genocide rather than looking at practical solutions. Which seems consistent with your idea of what counts as humourous japes at caucus members who you think should listen to your every word.

A public servant is a bureaucrat who is expected to perform their task as assigned to keep the mechanisms of government running.

A representative is supposed to listen to their constituents who are the electorate itself.

Either you do not know the difference or you are being disingenuous.

edit: I seem to recall my line of logic was that you preferred doing nothing about a genocide rather than looking at practical solutions.

Egregious misrepresentation yet again. One can look at superficially “practical” solutions indeed – and then turn away in horror upon considering their implications.

That is NOT “support” for genocide.

I suggest that you learn a bit of history. Mercenaries have never made things better. Indeed, they’ve manipulated things to make them worse for the sake of their own profit. It was said of John Hawkwood, a leading mercenary of the Renaissance, that he so arranged things that Italy never saw peace in his lifetime. You should see the massacres his troops committed for money, and the fact that is war is a mercenary’s business, then a mercenary’s business is ensuring that there will always be war. Pay a mercenary in the short term if you like – but then you’ll ensure that they will make sure that you will need them in the long term. You might save a thousand one day, but then you will allow someone to profit from killing hundreds of thousands.

I don’t think that you’re a bad person. I just think that you’re an idiot.

Which seems consistent with your idea of what counts as humourous japes at caucus members who you think should listen to your every word.

As opposed to us, mere plebs, who should tug our forelocks and listen to MPs?

self-inflated blogsite commenters.

OK, I’m self-inflated. Guess what? I think EVERY voter should be self-inflated. MPs are our servants, no more – and I think that they should be reminded of that at every opportunity.

What is the main mechanism of public feedback to an elected representative? Easy answer.

Clue: it enables MPs to distinguish between the will of the electorate as a whole, and local nutbars whose opinions do not reflect the desires of people who voted the representative in.

I reciprocate your opinion: I think you’re an idiot, too. I think you choose to learn (ha – reinforce your own conceits, more like) whatever you want from the renaissance, yet simultaneously ignore what has happened in the last twenty years and instinctively and viscerally (note lack of the word “rationally”) criticise suggested responses. In the same way that you confuse “tug our forelocks” with “hey folks, let’s not facetiously talk about killing named individuals, okay?”.

Fine: all supposition and projection, with more slurs added for effect.

Would you care to provide some evidence, or you really a shit who likes making insinuations instead of arguments?

with:

Also, Miss Manners, a clearly facetious suggestion that Mallard be subjected to a drone strike is terrible, yet saying outright that I support genocide – something I have never expressed and which is a serious slur on my character, is fine. Hypocritical, much?

You are a major moron.
Or maybe you just don’t like your own medicine: my Naomi Campbell reference was “clearly facetious”, your interpretation of our ‘ways to avoid genocide’ debate is “clearly” or “obviously” a self-serving delusion, with “Miss Manners” tacked on (just added for effect, as if a suggestion that hyperbolic threats to kill might not be conducive to engagement with the people you threaten is some bullshit etiquette prissiness).

So, it seems you are a moron or a hypocrite. Either way, I care little for your opinion.

Had you mentioned death threats in your first comment, I probably wouldn’t have responded the way I did, if at all. a. I would agree, violent references are not advisable and off-putting. b. somewhat irrelevant because the issue had been dealt with swiftly by lprent, colonial viper’s comment and rhinoviper themself, by acknowledging the point lprent was making.

Now, wouldn’t this be a good example for certain members of parliament on both sides of the house to follow? Swift and firm responses to dubious behaviour by the leaders followed by a quick “point taken” or apology

Not only was there no reference to the dealt-with-threat comment, you solely referenced Q0T’s comment re “free advice on what they’re doing wrong”.

In my opinion Q0T’s comments to r0b were fair and had merit, that you mentioned this particular conversation in a derogatory light indicated that you were baulking at people giving honest and fair feedback to members of our parliament, and that doing so, would cause disengagement from the caucus. If such is the case there is something very very undemocratic developing in this country.

This comment was also made at a time where members of the caucus have made the effort to comment here and from what I’ve viewed been responded to very appreciatively and courteously.

Members of the caucus can pick which threads to comment on, and if they wish to be dealing with “happy customers” it is poor judgement to choose one which is illustrating dubious behaviour from a member who has already displayed this before with no reprimand, with the exception that they are writing in to express shame or regret for their colleague’s behaviour.

@BL
Parliament is all too full of rhino’s point-taken,but-I’m-sorry-they-didn’t-realise-it-was-obviously-hyperbolic-and-took-offense style apologies.

“honest and fair feedback” here is sadly book-ended by outright abuse. And then commenters turn around and insist caucus give a shit about what they say. QoT seems to waiver between the two.

It reminds me of my days doing venue security, where drunks would call me a bunch of words that even I would blush to say, then two minutes later the same guys would be asking “mate, can’t you let me in?” [edit: the language wasn’t much of an issue, the abuse was]

As for “picking threads”, damned near every thread I’ve seen a Labour MP comment on subsequently attracts abuse and similar wastes of time. At least one expects that from tories.

@ McFlock
Hmm my impression and conclusions are quite other than the ones you have drawn. When MPs have commented here recently, I have viewed the responses of people writing in as being very appreciative and courteous. I can’t say this for every comment, yet note that the more vitriolic comments have popped up later, after the MP is no longer responding.

It appears to me that those criticizing commenters are fixating on a very few harsher comments and ones which have usually been posted later.

In these threads it is also clear that the MP can chose who to respond to. If someone wishes to be harsh, the MP has a choice not to respond.

I don’t really understand all this talk about “no wonder the MPs don’t comment here”, because the have done so.

The whole increasingly popular theory of blaming people for writing harsh things “is why MPs don’t comment regularly” seems misguided to me, for the above reason (that they do comment) and also there is a much more likely reason that MPs do not make comments regularly, and that is this is a very public place, the media and right-wing spinners have their eyes on the place, and it would be very easy to get into difficulties, look bad and have comments taken out of context.

I can well appreciate that politicians have to be very considered with what they say anywhere, and these “conversations” here, can take place in real time, yet remain on the page for days, and years and it would be very easy to end up saying something which could be used at a later date against them.

I think the reasons Labour MPs don’t comment here much are because they don’t understand the value of social media that well (esp the increasing role ts is playing); the whole darkened curtains/we’re not real voters thing; and because as you point out, they have to be careful about what they say.

However, given all that, if we want them to engage here more and in different ways than the past, how can we make that happen? Having tighter netiquette and moderation is one easy way. If the MPs already have significant barriers to get over (and they should get over them), then why present them with more? Saying they should just suck it up like everyone else is fine*, but only if one believes that it doesn’t matter if they comment here or not.

*’cept it’s not really. Labour MPs are going to, by default, attract much more abuse than any other regular newbie. That’s not making excuses for them (they deserve to be taken to task), it’s just an observation of fact.

I’d actually leave aside a goal of having MPs commenting on The Standard, as IMO it is a bit of a distraction.

However I would be in favour of some of the steps you suggest eg. tougher moderation (on some selected posts) in order to attract a far wider and more credible audience across NZ, including many more quotations by the MSM.

And guess what. At that stage, every MP is going to be scrambling on to here to get heard.

What I would like to see is MPs from the left, not just labour, coming in and yes, maybe going into a bit more detail or thinking behind policies and statements.

But at the moment what happens is an MP (almost always Labour) comes in, addresses one or two points, and then bails before things get too in depth and uncivil. Whether that’s what causes the incivility, or they simply cut their losses when the “why do you hate that NICE Mr Cunliffe, is it because he’s better than you” (or Rhino’s classy comments) start up is basically indeterminable.

Frankly a sustained debate on social justice involving MPs from a few parties and with other commenters heavily moderated would do more to show up Mallard’s wee outbursts than anything we can achieve here bickering amongst ourselves. That’d take some fairly heavy coordination from the volunteer authors and a shedload of planning, though.

Yes, I like the idea of specified threads with tougher moderation. This needs to be stated clearly at the start of the thread.

I really don’t think there is any proof that MPs are bailing due to rudeness. It is entirely possible they do not stick around for long because they are very busy people and more likely being careful not to say anything that could be misconstrued.

I hope there are some specified threads created, because I wouldn’t want this place to become stunted or a general stomping ground for political stunts, and I think it could if this nagging for politeness keeps up. If there were specified threads, then this might curb the pressure on other threads.

Well, incoherent ranting, and all dodging the issue and I cannot respond to what is incoherent.

Or maybe you just don’t like your own medicine: my Naomi Campbell reference was “clearly facetious”, your interpretation of our ‘ways to avoid genocide’ debate is “clearly” or “obviously” a self-serving delusion, with “Miss Manners” tacked on (just added for effect, as if a suggestion that hyperbolic threats to kill might not be conducive to engagement with the people you threaten is some bullshit etiquette prissiness).

Good God, could you actually try to make this into a sensible paragraph? As far as I can glean, you are reinforcing my point that you think it is OK for you to make outrageous suggestions and that’s it’s not for others, or something.

ignore what has happened in the last twenty years and instinctively

You suppose that suddenly in 1993 everything was different, that everything we have learned from history is irrelevant?

Again, let’s get to the point that you try so hard to avoid over and over. Do I support genocide? Did I ever say that? Can you prove it? All of your tantrums serve to avoid that point – so answer without theatrics.

Good God, could you actually try to make this into a sensible paragraph?

Turing test fail. Obvious failure to parse common language throws an exception that is caught by “recycle previous bullshit” handler.

You suppose that suddenly in 1993 everything was different, that everything we have learned from history is irrelevant?

Well, we were certainly facing uncommon geopolitical power structures combined with a post-colonial environment in a nuclear age. Not that many similar circumstances in human history. Doesn’t make all of history irrelevant, but can make some of the lessons less direct.
Oh, and it was 1994.

If I must address your “content”, such as it is, then sentence fragments and non-sequiturs are not “common language”. Instead, I would say that rather than using common language, you are using an idiolect.

This, for example, is simply “word salad”:

Turing test fail. Obvious failure to parse common language throws an exception that is caught by “recycle previous bullshit” handler

Andre Breton’s Surrealist “exquisite corpse” technique and William Burroughs’ cut-ups produce results that are more coherent. “The shoehorn refrigerator mocks a golden turkey, leading to despondent mayonnaise” at least has basic grammar and makes more sense.

“Throws an exception”? What do you mean?

As for the rest, somehow the late Cold War makes mercenaries necessary and good in ways they weren’t for thousands of years before? It would be nice to see how that is the case.

It would be nice to debate in good faith in plain English, but all you offer is gibberish that I can only assume is a parody of a programmer’s jargon.

In the meantime, can you prove that I advocate genocide, which is what you said that I do, and which you constantly fail to prove?

A question answered many times, if you’re asking why I think you’re prepared to do nothing and so let a genocide occur. But your obsession with it is quite funny, given you provide no alternative to standing by and singing songs in the hope that people stop hacking others with machetes.

An “exception” is a programming term for an unexpected condition in a computer programme, for example if the machine expects an integer and instead gets “cat”. Rather than breaking, it “throws” an (in this case) invalid return type exception, which is “caught” by an exception handler that, for example, tells the user “‘cat’ is not a number”. As a reference, it’s probably about as relevant as your mentoning Andre Breton – a literary reference that I’m not familiar with, bar wikipedia. But each to their own.

For someone prepared to throw around surrealist poets you’re a bit of a dick to express desire for a “debate in good faith in plain English”.

I don’t know about entitled. For me it’s more about pragmatics. If I were going to be subjected to abuse everytime I turned up here, I’m pretty sure I would stay away. Life is too short. So, do we want MPs to come here and engage or not? I think it’s worth a try, and so I think it’s worth making the effort to make that happen.

Alternatively, we can take the suck it up or fuck off attitude that is the norm here. And risk no MPs engaging here. What is attractive about that?

Frankly, I’ve dealt with bullies like Curran in a former workplace. They thought that they were wonderful people… because! I walked out with a very large out-of-court settlement because the fact was that they broke the law.

NOBODY deserves deference because, ooh, they’re important or because they think that they’re soooo cute.

Which option is more likely if we follow your approach of bile and hyperbolic abuse, and which option do we need to happen for the labour caucus to swing to the left and give us a decent chance of a left wing government?

[lprent: Keep that up and I’ll make a pre-emptive strike on your access here. The only reason that didn’t earn a ban was because it was so abnormal to your usual behaviours. ]

That’s not abnormal to Rhinocrates’ usual behavior at all and is the second time within a week that he’s directly threatened the lives of Labour MPs. Just because you share many of his/her beliefs shouldn’t mean Rhinocrates is let off the hook 1prent.

In my opinion, with attacks on Labour occurring on a regular basis, The Standard (as in a grouping of articles and comments) is becoming like the main right wing blogs.

Let’s put it this way… Would a commentator who implied that John Key should be stabbed in the eye with a screwdriver be allowed to continue commentating on Cameron Slater or David Farrar’s websites? The answer to that is assuredly no!

[lprent: I look at the ones I see. If you want me to look elsewhere then link to it. ]

On a post that was specifically concerned with David Shearer in which Rhinocrates had been highly critical of the leader of the opposition, he states:

I do suggest that you’ve chosen the wrong eye and even the wrong head.

That is a clear encouragement to do violence on somebody else, and in this case that person is obviously David Shearer.

306 (1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 is what you should be concerned with 1prent, because by allowing such threats to be published, The Standard’s admin are also liable for prosecution under the current law.

Hi there The Standard. Would like to comment occasionally. Our affordable housing policy and our monetary policy show we have moved a long way and are doing some deep thinking. Our relationship with The Greens is strengthening and mostly good and warm. We work together on many issues. The manufacturing inquiry is a very good example of this. We don’t agree on everything which is a healthy thing. My hope is that we can continue good, honest debates and be moving in the same direction.

Attacking the blog site, or attributing a mind to a machine (ie talking about The Standard as if it had an opinion), or trying to imply that the computer that runs the site has some kind of mind control over authors and commentators is not allowed. Making such assertions will often get the sysop answering you, because he considers that those are comments directed at him personally.

Talking as if there was a “Mass” just pisses me off because it so clearly isn’t the case. You need to view it as if every person here holds their own opinions and is happy to argue with virtually everyone else at the drop of a hat – because that is why people come to places like this.

The nearest thing there is here to a consensus is whatever I program and the policies that the moderators choose to enforce. Since those policies are mainly orientated to protect the ability of the site’s arguing individuals to carry on doing so, you get me answering.

Please don’t waste my time… Talk to individuals or to the contents of the post.

That particular section of the policy has been in there since early 2008. It was put there and is still there because 9 times out of 10 when people start addressing “The Standard” then they are busy constructing a strawmen in their heads that they will henceforth address rather than actually talking to people. It is boring as crap for everyone to read because proponents of the technique never discuss anything with anyone real….. I have found that political agents are particularly susceptible to this strawmen technique and the most indignant when being pulled up about using it (John Pagani being one of my more favorite examples)

I will have to eventually waste effort on them because they start abusing authors while addressing some mythical figure that exists in their head. They will get indignant because a person (me) intrudes into their personal in headspace and abused the crap out of them for mastubating on our site. But they seldom know how to amend their behaviour before tripping over a policy.

So I get pedantic and see if they can learn to deal with humans early rather than later. It saves moderator time because we find out early if hey are adaptable enough to change their behaviour.

Arguing with me, or any other human on site is actually one of the safest things that people can do. Doing the ACToid trick of arguing both sides of the argument by reinterpreting everything into your own strawmen is one of the most dangerous.

Fair enough 1prent… Although being able to assert both sides of an argument is not generally a bad thing, reinterpreting things out of context like an Actoid is obviously annoying… It’s actually a technique used by those when their argument is lost, to try and change the premiss of the debate/discussion in the hope that it will bamboozle their opponents.

Clare, you can instead say “Hi there Standardistas”. Or direct your comment to the author if it’s more specific.

I think most people can see that Labour and the GP do work together at times. It’s the attacks on the GP done in public that raise eyebrows. Can’t see the point myself, given the two parties will be forming the next government. Or the one after that. It’s just going to make things difficult next year. Will be interesting to see if Mallard, Jones etc pull their head in during the election campaign.

As this post is concerning a ‘twittering’ Trevor Mallard publicly insulting Green Party Leader Russell Norman perhaps you can tell us here at the Standard if such an attack is ‘working more closely, Labour Party policy, or just Trevor mentally masterbating in a public space…

Just like every one of the few Labour MPs who’ve commented here, especially after being asked a question they know the true left won’t like the answer to – the kind of question that gets you kicked off redalert. Oh, those were the days…

FFS, reading those two twits on twitter, I can’t figure out who is more childish…
We should also remember Russel Norman put the boot into Mana just as they were trying to launch their party to the public.
I’m not saying Trev is right, just saying the Greens have been responsible for friendly fire too. Hone has launched more than a few as well…but they are never as damaging when its the smaller party questioning the larger. Labour must reflect on this, they have more power and therefore more responsibility.

Differences between parties are to be expected, but they should be presented to the public carefully. Ramifications to either party must be at the forefront of everyone’s thinking.

Here’s the “Labour” voter, one of many millions who will deliver the party to victory in 2014… or 2017… or 2018 if the four-year terms happens, and after that 2022, or definitely 2026!

He – and you can be sure it’s a “he” – is a “battler”. The sort that supported John Howard, until he ran out of “battlers”, but what the hell, there are plenty left, surely.

They have a job, they’re preferably self-employed or have a small business, because they’re more ashpirashunul.

They’re on the knife-edge of unemployment, but not quite unemployed – rather, they have to fear being unemployed, and because they fear that status, they have to hate it – and therefore they hate the unemployed because everyone hates what they fear becoming.

They might perhaps be Maori, but more likely they know someone who’s Maori, but the Maori they know are reasonable folk, just like them and not those protesting types. It’s probably a good idea to show up at that Ratana place and be seen to be welcomed… but better not overdo it, or you’ll look weird, or radical.

They’re not feminists, because that’s “identity politics” which is… well, OK… but distracting. They’re not gay either, because that’s… well, a minority, and if they grab the headlines, it looks like a special interest group has taken over (not like middle-aged, middle-class white male folks who are really the people who vote). Civil rights are good, but Damien O’Connor had it… I mean in presenting an appeal… Remember, most of our supporters are.. I mean, they’re salt-of-the-earth types… I mean, moving into the new century… but you know, they don’t necessarily… they still aren’t… well, you know.. Grant? Oh good, I see that you know what I mean.

Generally they think that they’re reasonable types, and all their complaints are reasonable. We can put up with the homophobia thing for the time being.

Remember, the election’s going to be decided in Remuera, which is like the West Coast, I suppose. Where the West Coasters want to be, right? With more money.

Now let’s think about other people, the people people want to be. They donate, remember? Like Owen whatshisname… alright, I’m sorry, we’re not meant tone seen standing too close to him… yes, I know, Banks and Kim Dotcom… well, maybe we can… I mean I’m just suggesting!

Look, it comes down to this: these are the people you don’t want to upset.

Sorry, subtlety is not my forte. In good faith, what I wrote – as I said in the first line – was satire of an attitude that could be attributed to a possible advisor, not my own. It represents or depicts a point of view and a set of attitudes that I despise. If what I wrote was offensive otherwise, then I apologise, but I would like some specifics, so that I don’t repeat the mistake if that’s OK.

[lprent: Anything that looks like the advocation of violence against an individual is high risk. We’re all humourless bastards on that topic as it starts flame wars. The moderator to particularly worry about seeing it is r0b because when he moderates, he operates a no tolerance policy on it because he doesn’t like it at all. Fortunately that is a point that I am less concerned about, which is why you probably just got lucky. ]

I’m not sure what lprent is on about, Rhinocrates – but to get back to your thread – yes, I’ve met a number of those sorts of people, they exist, and they appear to be the “blokey” types the current caucus want to have voting for them. Your fictitious persona and what/who he represents is spot on !

There are usually between 300 and a thousand comments here per day that we moderate whilst in the midst of our jobs and lives. We don’t read the context most of the time. We moderate mostly looking for *what* was said rather than what people were *thinking*.

So I didn’t even really red your comment. My eye was drawn immediately to the statement that Trevor should be attacked. If you don’t want moderators crapping all over your comments, then don’t write things that attract them.

Indeed. Labour must have judged Talent 2 to have been capable of fulfilling the contract and delivering on the end product. Although why a Labour Government would outsource payroll work for NZ teachers to an Australian company is beyond me.

“why a Labour Government would outsource payroll work for NZ teachers to an Australian company is beyond me.”
Because they thought – mistakenly – that it would be cheaper; no other reason.
Conclusion – Labour, just as National, have no interest in preserving jobs in NZ, they are happy to export them overseas.

Theu really are going to hand another victory to the Nat’s aren’t they!

On the QE / Currency War front.

Steve Keen’s jubilee circumvents inflation, insist it goes first into debt reduction. Although, if we could include Commodities, Wquities and Assets in the CPI, we’d find a) Private Credit creation is inflationary, b) Sonia QE when the cash is handed to Banks to speculate with, cause they ain’t lending it.

Actually you couldn’t print money for everything you want, while you appear with the smiley face to be joking such an idea as you propose in terms of the accounting methods used by the Neanderthalic economic illiterates in charge would simply lead to runaway inflation,

Obviously money has become a perversion of it’s intended use where the hording of vast sums of it has become the reason for denying more and more of us a fair share of it,

The capitalist system is obviously bankrupt and only injections of capital both borrowed and printed are keeping it functioning,

The only means of survival that capitalism has is to constantly remove from the top of the economy the horded wealth redistributing such wealth to those with the least amount of such wealth in an economy,

Thus those with a desire for wealth will compete to regain a share of such wealth to horde in the process creating production which requires labour…

Thus those with a desire for wealth will compete to regain a share of such wealth to horde in the process creating production which requires labour…

Unfortunately in the coming world, both energy and physical resources are going to become extremely constrained. The paradigm of wealth through consumption has to end, preferably before we have no other choice.

Nope, in it’s infancy the ‘new’ technology which allows mirrors to concentrate the energy of the sun upon a ‘processor’ that with the aid of freely available minerals will turn treated sewerage into hydrogen is the energy of the future, both the necessary ingredients, Sunlight and Water are pretty much inexhaustible in supply,

A miniature version of this type of energy production is already operating in California where the Hydrogen produced is powering the sewerage treatment plant along with the Hydrogen necessary to fuel a small number of vehicles,

Not sure what you mean by physical resources so i will leave the comment there…

Try doing without someone or an organisation that doesn’t use rare earths…

There might well be substitutes, but if so, start thinking about what they might be.

Saying “we don’t need these things” is bullshit. Once upon a time we didn’t, but there were only a few hundred thousand of us and we could only expect to live to be thirty. Now there are seven billion, and all those people want good, long lives, and who’s to say no?

Very nice, but there are major problems. The new energy system has to:

Be able to replace currently existing systems. That will take time. The technology at least has to be cheap and easily replicable. Can the infrastructure be set up easily and be spread far and wide swiftly? Nuclear reactors are in fact quite simple to make in theory, but expensive in practice.

Be practical. Hydrogen looks nice as a fuel for cars, but the tanks have to be big because hydrogen has low density and takes up a lot of volume – and it requires extreme refrigeration. So a hydrogen-powered car would be cool… actually it would have to be really cool. It needs cryogenic cooling, actually, and even then the fuel tank will still be big (Have you ever wondered why rockets are so big?) On the plus side, if you crash, the hydrogen will go up rather than spread all over the road and the wreck, and being the most abundant element in the universe, it’ll be cheap.

Energy density is a major issue: the fact is, a litre of petrol has far less volume than a battery containing the same amount of energy. If you use a battery, then your car has to be bigger, heavier and take more time recharging (hours versus seconds). Also, in winter it will be less effective, since cold batteries hold less charge.

Be convenient otherwise. Maybe that will come to pass: Elon Musk’s Tesla cars seem to be brilliant according to testers due to their iPod-like functioning (updates over the Internet, not at the garage). Moreover, electric motors give all their torque right away, so acceleration is fantastic and people who like sports cars love that.

Be economical, meaning that it offers advantages to shareholders and consumers (monetary and otherwise), otherwise it will remain in the lab or on powerpoint and in the publicity videos. Windfarms are nice, but do they actually offer an advantage. More people actually get killed in their construction (as people always get killed in construction projects) than die from causes attributable to nuclear power stations. They’re better than coal, but are they, according to the math, better than everything?

Meet demand without being worse than the problem (biofuels are an example there – yes, they’re a bit cleaner in use, but require the destruction of rainforest).

Somehow overcome superstition. That’s my real beef with the Greens around the world – their opposition to fusion, for Cthulhu’s sake, apparently because it’s “nuclear”. The friggin SUN is nuclear, you fools. Plate tectonics are ultimately driven by nuclear energy at the Earth’s core. If plate tectonics didn’t happen, then the Earth would be like Venus. Granite gives you a radiation dose and the whole galaxy itself is awash with high energy particles that cause cancer. Grrr!

OK,

Overall, yes, there may be a wonder technology, and certainly new technological developments do change the world. However, there are inevitable trade-offs, compromises and so on that may or may not be show-stoppers, but which in any case will present obstacles to be overcome.

For example, regarding energy, the real choice might be between nuclear and coal, not coal and unicorns, because unicorns don’t exist or are extremely rare.

Unicorns might be great, but where do we find them? Can we breed them in sufficient numbers, can we avoid being cruel to them?

Then we meet the sheer, stubborn stupidity of the world that won’t just see and embrace the goodness, the rightness of a new solution to its problems.

History isn’t sensible. You are almost certainly using a QWERTY keyboard. Do you know why this happened? Because in the first mechanical typewriters, the keys jammed due to commonly-used letters being close together. If you typed fast, then you were more likely to jam, so the QWERTY format was instituted, which put all of the commonly-used letters far apart. Nowadays. everyone’s used to QWERTY despite the fact that modern keyboards aren’t mechanical and won’t jam. It takes a month’s training at least to learn how to use a keyboard that isn’t QWERTY and produce the same or superior output, so no alternative has become the standard and employer invests in retraining even though in the long term their profitability would improve. Instead we all get OOS, because in the short term it’s cheaper and easier.

Now, I don’t doubt that some new, revolutionary technology will change everything – consider how the Internet has changed the world, but sometimes, indeed most of the time, the “obvious” superiority of something will not guarantee that it becomes the standard.

So yes, there might be this new wonder technology, but that won’t save us yet. On the other hand, by all means, work on it because eventually we will need it.

My guess is that the Internet succeeded because it didn’t replace anything at first – it only replaced things as a result. Energy, manufacturing and cars are something that do need direct replacements but that will be much harder and take longer. It won’t be impossible, but it won’t happen soon or easily.

In the meantime, we need lesser evils before greater aims.

(and if anyone wants to make a political analogy, ergonomics is not politics, OK?)

I have a mild suspicion your suggestion is mean to be flippant and/or sarcastic. However there are economic models that provide for just that.

One – sorry I can’t point to it as it’s years since I saw it in print – suggests ‘printing money’ through the payment of a universal living allowance, and the sopping up of excess money through a tax on profits.

Of course it would take a forward-thinking, risk-taking government to introduce such a scheme – much like the ones that introduced universal free education for children, a National Health Service and universal benefits. Haven’t seen one of those for quite a while but I have hopes that the GP might yet break the paralysis.

Yep, it could be done that way, or, simply print the stuff in such an amount that ensures that ‘everyone’ below X amount of income whether renting privately or from the State only pays 25% of their income as rent, and then recoup the monies by taxation upon those who own rental properties, what would be needed to achieve this is simply a data base of all rental properties that identified the owner,

The ‘problem’ that the working poor have faced over the past 30 years is that thye have been in the main forced out into the private rental market whereas before that they could have expected to have been tenants of the State,

The end result is that those working poor 30 years on now pay 50%+ of their incomes as rent whereas previously this would have been 25% of that income,

As that has occurred within the economy gradually over that 30 years the 25% difference in rent’s paid has NOT been spent into the local economy, constraining consumption and employment, and has instead become a direct transfer of NZ production from the economy to foreign owned banks…

I think a bit of conflict on the left is a good thing. We should be free to debate the things that matter to us. While it shouldn’t be a daily ritual, a Labour MP (in coordination with the leader and in line with a communications strategy) should have reign to take on other parties where those parties policies deviate from Labour’s, and sufficiently so that Labour considers them harmful.

What we shouldn’t have to debate are our principles. Those should be clear as day. And the principle of the left has always been that the ‘market’ is a system which has been set up to benefit those who have, at the expense of those who do not. The logic of intervention is a principle we own. We WILL intervene, because it is right.

It’s where the whole of the current Labour Party falls down. A quick look at its latest housing plan is clear evidence of that. If they’re relying on the “market” to deliver in such a crucial social policy area as housing then heaven help us.

The market is not delivering, which is the point. The government needs to step in and correct a problem the market has caused. In conjunction with the Green’s housing policy, Labours housing policy will effectively fix a major problem with our society ie not enough affordable and healthy housing being available to New Zealanders.

If Mallard could debate without the smart arse shit that would be fine but just being a dick because he can does not achieve a thing. Labour members should remember this guy headed up the last Labour election campaign which was a huge success just ask Phil. Its time a large number of this Labour caucus moved on instead of trying to cling to power because they offer nothing to Labour/members/voters and certainly wont win back traditional Labour voters.

Twitter is only a small component, of course. But if you look across all media – old, new, whatever – what do you find? David Shearer agreeing with John Key about both a 4 year term and Titewhai, and … what else?

Every person who comes on here and says “Why aren’t you guys attacking the real enemy?” should copy that comment to the Labour leader’s office. Until then, we have a vacuum, and spats like this (Mallard/Norman) will – inevitably – fill the vacuum. And No, a daily press release written by a staffer won’t cut it.

Most of the critics (the good faith ones, I mean) would – I think – be willing to give credit where it’s due. To follow the leader of the opposition, when he gets stuck in to the Tories. But what is there to follow?

Is this an adequate response to a highly disruptive fiasco that is costing schools upwards of $8million and counting, not to mention the headaches for admin. staff and the complete failure of the Minister of Education to ensure teachers are paid properly? For six months??!

To compare – the UK MP Chris Huhne has gone down for traffic fine irregularities ten years ago. Guardian

What will it take to fire up Mr Shearer? Are teachers and schools not that important? He flapped about education last year but when it comes to walking the talk ……

@KJT
Yeah, it looks that way. On One news tonight, Shearer was grinning like an imbecile (edited out of the online footage) while he made the startling revelation that Novopay had probably failed.

A decent Opposition would have ripped the government to shreds last year – I can only surmise Labour don’t want to be in government. Too many precious dweebs, tired old hacks and loose cannons to forge into something competent. And they really don’t want to deal with iwi over water. They still fantasise that the Maori Party vote will come back to them.

“The fact that you’ve failed to provide one indicates that you were lying!”

Not so.

Not everyone has broadband and can get to the footage they have seen on television.

It is pretty disingenious of you to ask for links for examples of poor presentation from Mr Shearer. There are numerous examples. You said yourself on another thread recently that the media do particularly poor shots of the guy; from observation TV3 is particularly guilty of this, so I suggest that you go to TV3s website. One has to also note that it is not easy to get a good shot of someone who hasn’t got the type of poise that shows up well on footage.

Shearer himself admits to a weakness in this area:

Perhaps the most glaringly obvious problem for Shearer is his handling of press conferences – an everyday reality when Parliament is sitting – something he himself accepts. He frequently gabbles and seems unsure of his ground, giving equivocal answers rather than clear sound bites, and they dominate his image on the evening bulletins.

Who can ever forget: “I do not believe I am not, not connecting.”

Shearer says his public face is a work in progress. “I’m not slick, but I’m genuine. There are areas around presentation I agree I can sharpen up on, and I’m working on that.”

I for one have watched the demolition of the Labour Party now for far too long.
The recent activities by the caucus in stripping the members rights in the leadership
issue was one,the second was sending Cunliffe to the backbench, in the manner that
he was, it was disgusting, the third was CC’s attempt to silence CV.
Where injustice is seen to be done,there will be a revolt and there will be opinions
there is nothing that those inside caucus can do to stop it, that is the nature of
having a ‘supposed democracy’ which it seems the currrent labour caucus has
no respect for.
It’s all very well for those in caucus or those who are mp’s to fly the banner of
the Labour Party, when their actions fly in the face of,fairness,integrity,honesty,
compassion and believabilty, that they are genuine about the Labour party and
it’s heart,or is the Labour Party intended to be a personal vehicle for their personal
aspirations and stufff what the people or members think ?

Made the mistake of joining Labour last year, after talk of a more participatory structure, the Cunliffe debacle and talk on here about the potential to vote around leadership. I thought I would break my promise to myself to never join a political party.

Post the recent Leadership vote (void of membership) and now Mallards outburst, proving he’s totally out of touch with the global economic debate and is intent on undermining his potential partners, I just resigned my membership.

I feel much better.

Now, onward with the future, and the end of any delusions that Labour’s “rear vision mirror” will get us anywhere.

Speaking of economic debates, why not throw a couple of bucks towards Steve Keen’s Kickstarter, and help him model our economy with the inclusion of Banks, Money & Debt, so we can help encourage the likes of Mallard beyond Econ101.

Couldnt agree more VViper and if people think that King, Curren, Fenton, Nash and so on are posting here at the Standard because they want to engage with people on the left ,think again all I see is the same tone coming through from these people, they think they know best and that everyone else should be their cheerleading squad. If these people wanted engagement they would have voted at conference for members to have greater say in future leadership selections but they didn’t. Actions speak louder than words and many of us who are regulars at the Standard have their number based on passed actions. To many Labour politicians are great at talking about “Labour Principles “but when they have the opportunity to be inclusive they choose power and control for themselves.

Don’t forget them. Those are the ones I want to see contributing here. They remind me that Labour was and should be a progressive party, always applying the principles of fairness, compassion and egalitarianism.

Not the “realists” like Nash and Pagani and Pagani, or bigots like Tamihere or children like Mallard… or Mallards like Mallard (really, the idiot’s his own trope definer).

They don’t say, “That’s the way it is as I see it, we have to work with the system.”

That’s Blairbour.

Instead, they ask, “How can the world be better?” and then they go and make it better.

If you’re reading this Louisa and others, then if you see the comments of those who are furious at the Labour caucus, then remember that those people don’t hate Labour – they love what it’s been and what it could be.

I am terribly disappointed that when we have dialogue or receive commmets from our elected members of parliament some commentators take it as an opportunity to use ridicule or simple attack mentality.
It would appear that for some members of labour there is a desire to engage both voters and commentators in an open manner.
Time we as commentators of the left get on board, focus and engage in a positive manner.

Comment of the Day, Geoff! You’d have to wonder why they’d bother, eh? I’ve been bugging MP’s and LP leadership for years to accept that the Standard is here to stay and that they need to be part of the TS community too. But, if they are greeted with abuse, then the Standard and its readers are the losers. Hell, its pretty obvious that Green MP’s and Hone won’t dip a digital toe here, so why should Labour MPs bother?

There’s an obvious difference there though TRP, in that neither The Greens nor Hone seem to have any problem communicating with their members and supporters in a way that the members and supporters are happy with.

Yes, but TS is not a Labour Party communication outlet. The Standard is from the labour movement and it should be somewhere where the LP can contribute freely. TS is weaker without the LP and vice versa. The LP needs to lift its comms game both in tone and content and having a regular presence here would help. The same also applies to the Greens and mana. They should be here too.

Why aren’t they, felix? What is it about the Standard that hardly any MP’s want to comment here?

Oh it was. However I try to always land on that particular kind of statement because it doesn’t reflect the reality of the site. And it is beloved of the idiots who prefer to attack constructed strawmen rather than dealing with actual individuals.

It is the classic bogeyman strategy beloved by wannabe politicians and small children. So when it is used about this site I always try to make sure I provide the individual in your face bogeyman that people don’t want to see. And to be reasonably consistent I pull up everyone when I can.

Once again you miss the point of this place, it’s not about me you or your precious Labour party, the Labour party that is and has been on the rocks for a while now and know amount of huffing and puffing is going to see it floating again any time soon. My opinon!

People come here to express their opinions, words thats all, you don’t like those opinions, ignore them or piss off, you could of course debate in good faith it you liked, which would make you look stronger in the long run.

I think the second paragraph of my comment answers your question Weka, but will elaborate.

Weka: I have know problem with anyone commenting here, just find it a bit rich when people like TRP start saying things like “But, if they are greeted with abuse, then the Standard and its readers are the losers.”. This site has rules that apply to everyone and if they (the politicians) can’t take a little flack then perhaps they should start looking for a new line of work.

Might be better to remain silent and be thought a fool though than speck up and remove all doubt.

Because TRP, what I actually want from our Labour caucas is a fucken response regarding the shit that went on after the November conference…I won’t re join the party until the whole Cunliffe thing is sorted and he is promoted into a position where he can use his skills.

Why is it that Mallard the useless wanker make tweets such as these and receives no punishment, why can Jones attack the greens and not receive any punishment. Why dont the labour caucus respond to comments such as Anne 12.2.1. Then they may get some respect.

I found CC comments patronising and light weight, I dont want to read a comment from her that I could have read from the website, I want a response to some of the tougher questions. D Fenton’s comments have been good. Nash’s comments have been condescending. Thats my opinion.

If you are inferring that I was demanding that Cunliffe be reinstated forthwith type of thing, then you have misinterpreted what I said.

I was pointing out that the only way to bridge the gap between a significant portion of the membership and themselves, was to reinstate David Cunliffe to his former position. That is my considered view and I stick by it.

That’s as may be, however it still required no response from caucus. There was no request for information or clarification. The portrayal of the parties involved allowed no justification for any alternative to the actions you described. And any explanation as to why Cunliffe might not be such a great guy to work with would simply be slagging off a fellow caucus member in a public forum (for which the responsible caucus member should quit. That’s why, assuming Gower wasn’t making shit up, those who did it did so under anonymity).

Therefore Peter asking why caucus don’t respond to that and similar statements is a touch naive.

Absolutely agree with GeoffC & TRP above. Having strongs views on the way a party should be run is normal and healthy – but the vitriol and personal abuse leveled at some ‘elected’ Labour MPs on this site is astounding – especially from faceless commentors who claim to be members.

Greens and Labour have differences. Politicians argue – it’s what they do. They position themselves. Russel Norman is quite good at it himself.

I do wonder if social media is actually tearing us apart instead of bringing us together….?

This Viper certainly sees the irony in your “faceless commentators” remark, Mr Mongoose, since Clare, Trevor, and a substantial portion of both the Labour Caucus and NZ Council know exactly who I am.

And I don’t just “claim” to be a Labour Party member, I’m a Labour Party member, donor, activist, and organiser that the ABCs threatened in person, and then wanted to revoke the membership of via disciplinary proceedings in front of NZ Council.

But in this incarnation of the Labour Party, this is simply situation normal

The support I received from both yourself and from the huge Viper Squadron here at the Standard really meant a lot. (There were roughly 60-70 unique Viperised handles from what I could tell, including a number of quite lovely Right Wing Vipers ha)

I’m a Labour Party member, donor, activist, and organiser that the ABCs threatened in person, and then wanted to revoke the membership of via disciplinary proceedings in front of NZ Council.

I can hardly believe what I’ve just read CV. I’ve been in and around the LP since the 1970s, and that is the worst instance of bullying in the L.P. I have ever heard about. I was aware the NZ Council in effect gave the ‘raspberry’ to a complaint by Clare Curran, but I had no idea it was as serious as that.

I met Clare Curran once (about 2 and a half years ago) and we had a brief, friendly chat. After the final campaign rally in Auckland in 2011, I bumped in to her again. I gave her a big smile (as one does in such circumstances) and was taken aback by her reaction. She recognised me – although I don’t know whether she knew exactly who I was – and she positively recoiled. My thought at the time (not expressed of course): you little snob, who the hell do you think you are.

No real need to apologise Clare. I meant that you appeared to recognise me as someone you had nevertheless seen before. It was a minor incident and not one to which I took too much offence. I was only reminded of it due to a previous comment.

Labour are know doubt falling back on the age old policy of finding one or two minority groups then bashing the hell out of them, this will light up the red neck bigots vote of course, it’s worked so well for National with beneficiaries, but Labour can’t go there yet can they! not just yet.

On the above discussion on Labour MPs and abusive comments. I am generally not keen on ad hominems by or to anyone online. I think they could put off a lot of non-MP, left people from commenting on TS.

In the mid 90s I learned it was a basic netiquette thing to attack the comments/issues/topic not the commenter.

The other thing Karol is a fair hunk of the population work in public service and until now these people have had to sit quietly by while watching without having a voice, well now they have one because they can speck up anonymously.

Now is this a good thing, more oversight, I would say yes, but I don’t think a lot of politicians will be at all happy about it, so lets watch then trying to shut it down by ridiculing and belittling these anonymous people, which it looks like is already happening here.

There are many good reasons for not sending NZ troops to support the US campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq. Thursday 5 March, there will be vigils to express opposition to the deployment: No military deployment in Iraq: Nationwide… ...

This morning's Herald has not one but two opinion pieces on the Northland by-election. First, here's Bryan Rudman: The March 28 Northland byelection had the makings of a real nailbiter if Labour had stood aside and made it a two-horse… ...

A Heart Foundation billboard depicting 'NZ's biggest killer' has been defaced with a sketch of Prime Minister John Key. The billboard aimed at raising awareness of heart disease as "New Zealand's biggest killer" will now have to be taken… ...

. . In his recent statement to Parliament, Dear Leader Key made this commitment to the people of New Zealand when announcing that troops would be sent to Iraq; “The deployment will be reviewed after nine months and will be… ...

Brian Leyland has written an op-ed in the herald that is so comically wrong it’s hard not to ignore. Every single one of the 13 paragraphs contains (often basic) factual errors or opinion masquerading as fact. So I thought I’d… ...

by Phil DuncanMoney can’t buy me love, went the old Beatles song. Perhaps Mana and the left currents within it should’ve taken the Beatles’ point to heart.Although the sections of the left that supported Mana and the InternetMana… ...

Look, I know you are all fired up about this Asian foreign driver thing. But just stop it. Now. You are the last nation on Earth to be complaining about foreign drivers. You are the most reckless, selfish and unthinking drivers… ...

The quashing of the convictions of Teina Pora for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett in 1992 has shone a spotlight once again on a major gap in the New Zealand justice system. To all intents and purposes, access… ...

A report from economics consultancy Econometrics estimates that New Zealand could save $10 million per lunar month if all the work that goes into solving sudoku puzzles were automated. The setting of sudoku is already largely computerised. If the solving… ...

Economic Policies for an Incoming Labour Government By Bryan Gould and George Tait EdwardsPart 2 of 9: Stimulating Wealth Creation If we are to find that better way, we must clearly understand the failures and deficiencies of what has gone… ...

Income Equality Aotearoa New Zealand Inc. Closing the Gap MEDIA RELEASE: 3rd March 2015 “We are delighted to see that the politicians have recognised the greed and selfishness embodied in their initial response to their remuneration increases and are now… ...

So there I was, confidently predicting that Winston Peters wouldn’t risk the humiliation of losing in the Northland by-election… At the end of the day, perhaps the most important point is that Winston Peters really doesn’t like losing. He won’t put himself forward as… ...

Guest Post by Ryan Mearns, Generation ZeroAs we outlined yesterday Auckland Council’s transport budget options in the Long Term Plan offered a false choice. Build everything in the Auckland Plan Network at the cost of finding an extra $300 million a… ...

New Zealanders have been going to the polls for the better part of 150 years. And over that time, voting has changed dramatically. For example, drunkenness, bribery and double voting are no longer considered just part of the day! Thankfully!… ...

Welcome to Australia, where if you don't like the government's racist refugee deportation policies, their airline collaborator will ban you from flying:Qantas has banned a Melbourne man from flying with them after he asked to be removed from a flight… ...

The development of new knowledge and technology is growing at a faster rate than ever before and successful businesses generally have to remain at the cutting edge of their industries to survive. We are now operating in a global, interconnected… ...

One of the predictions about climate change is that climate change-induced drought and famine will lead to more wars. Sadly, it turns out that what is happening in Syria is one of those wars:Drawing one of the strongest links yet… ...

“Do we want to be a society that is supportive, that is inclusive and compassionate, where it is acknowledged that not all can prosper, where those who are most vulnerable, most in need of help, are not seen as lazy… ...

Howie Tamati, sole Maori councillor on the New Plymouth District Council, sees the granting of Maori wards on local councils as a step in the right direction, “not the right answer but a start” (Insight, Radio NZ, March 1st). He… ...

This is a really good post on Christchurch’s future cycling infrastructure. I don’t have a huge amount to add to it, but would suggest you read it, if you prefer your cycling analysis to be backed up by research rather… ...

Gallant Deeds: New Zealand SAS troopers returning from a bitter fire-fight at the Kabul Intercontinental Hotel, Afghanistan, June 2011. The NZ Defence Force is fanatical in its determination to control the totality of information emerging from the theatres in which its… ...

I was wondering why there’s been so much media about the $168,000 rude cake on Facebook HRT finding, and then I read the Tribunal decision which you can find here. It is very long, and amazing in a way that can’t… ...

As readers know, John Key has decided to change the law to change a proposed 5% pay increase for MPs into a 1-2% increase instead. First, this is really smart politics. People hate paying MPs anything, so paying them less… ...

Cry Havoc! For the first time in many years a major New Zealand Christian denomination has come out in support of military action. But have the Catholic Bishops interpreted their Church's "Just War Doctrine" correctly? (Graphic: Warmonger by John… ...

This bulletin inventories reactions to recent revelations made about Wiilie Soon's relationship with the fossil fuel industry while employed by the Smithsonian Institution at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. This bulletin also functions as a supplementary reading list to Dana's recently posted… ...

Let’s be clear: constitutionally, the Executive decides where and how troops are deployed. John Key did not need Parliament’s approval to go to war. And let’s be clear: Key is going to war. Iraq is at war. Training its… ...

Press Release – Doctors for Healthy Trade A careful assessment of what could happen to the health of New Zealanders under the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is needed, say New Zealand doctors. An Australian report Negotiating Healthy Trade in… ...

Press Release – Public Health Association of Australia A report released today by a large team of academics and non-government health organisations reveals that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) poses risks to the health of Australians in areas such as… ...

Professor Shiba knew that some day he might be captured by the Yamatais – he, who alone knew the secrets of the ancient monster race that would soon rise up to conquer the world. So he patiently stored himself in… ...

Is this for real? Mike Hosking equates jobs, such as his, a talking head with a soldier’s deployment in Iraq? Please tell me this man is joking? Unbelievable. Is this the ‘get some guts’ that Key talks about? Getting guts… ...

by Danios Below, I have reproduced a year-by-year timeline of America’s wars, which reveals something quite interesting: since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar… ...

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so we were extremely flattered to see Auckland Transport today start using the images below to advertise some of the benefits of the City Rail Link. … ...

Policy Quarterly has just published papers from a symposium on distributional inequality held last June. There are really interesting papers by Geoff Bertram, Phillip Morrison, Bill Rosenberg and Simon Chapple et al which you may want to read for yourself.read&hellip; ...

Bartholomew Leading A broken rib is no big deal. Sure, it hurts like Hell, but three or more broken ribs hurt worse and, snapped and broken and freely moving under the weight and pressure of a 280lb man can… ...

Tony Abbott's visit to New Zealand gave Australian political commentators another excuse to highlight the failings of his leadership, by comparing him with John Key. However, their list of John Key's successes is a little... odd:Key has, with a minimum… ...

The fight against Islamic State is not the fight of the oppressor against the disposed and the poor. Its leaders and disciples are mostly educated and middle class, if not wealthy. It’s the victims in Iraq and Syria who are the poor.read more ...

Guest Post from Ryan Mearns, Generation Zero Auckland For nearly 50 years from the early 1950’s Auckland invested solely in roads, and especially motorways, with all other transport modes being totally ignored. This one sided level of investment was not… ...

Share this:

Related

The Privy Council’s decision to quash Teina Pora’s convictions for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett could be the final chapter in a case that should have been closed years ago, Labour’s Justice Spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. “Teina Pora… ...

The current and previous Revenue Ministers must front up and explain how the child support system had a budget blowout from $30 million to $210 million in just four years, says Labour’s Revenue spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove. “Peter Dunne was Revenue… ...

A review of the way MPs’ pay is set should also look at ways to curb excessive rises in the salaries of public service chief executives, Labour Leader Andrew Little says. “Some of these CEOs have had stratospheric pay increases… ...

The minimum wage rose by 50 cents this month from 14.25 to 14.75. While it’s a small step towards ensuring minimum workers get a fair share, it’s important to remember that real wages only rose 1.5% while productivity rose by… ...

It should seem obvious to employers, private or public, that it’s important to do what you can to retain your best, most experienced staff. They make life easier for you because they’re effective, attentive and often respected by those around… ...

That ban was widely hailed, and spurred efforts in other countries to get similar bans. However, apes are still being exploited, abused and killed, both in captivity and in the wild. Examples of cruelty, neglect and abuse abound. Apes are… ...

The only word to describe the latest building consent figures for Auckland is ‘tragic’, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “Whatever the Government is doing to address the Auckland housing crisis, it is clearly not working. ...

A pest which could create havoc for New Zealand’s horticulture and agriculture sector must be as much a focus for the Government as hunting out fruit flies, Labour’s Biosecurity spokesperson Damien O’Connor says. “While the Ministry for Primary Industries is… ...

Despite new evidence showing that cuts to health spending are costing lives the Government continues to deny the sector is struggling, Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette King says. “Health services in New Zealand are in crisis. ...

When Hekia Parata became aware that the Whangaruru charter school was experiencing major problems her first action was to drop standards by reducing the number of qualified teachers they had to employ, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins has revealed. “Hekia… ...

John Key and Bill English need to be straight with New Zealanders about the damage their failure to diversify the economy is doing, after new figures show export growth plunged due to a collapse in dairy exports, says Grant Robertson.… ...

This week the International Monetary Fund released a report on the wider economic value in closing the gender pay gap. When even the bastions of free-market economics start to raise concerns about gender pay gaps, we have to realise how… ...

Labour will hold National to its promise to increase the support given to new parents of premature, multiple birth and babies born with disabilities, Labour’s paid parental leave campaigner Sue Moroney says. "I am naturally disappointed that after battling for… ...

Steven Joyce’s confession that he can no longer guarantee a pillar-free design for the New Zealand International Convention Centre shows the Government has abandoned its dream of creating an ‘iconic’ ‘world-class’ structure, says Labour Economic Development spokesperson David Clark. “Steven… ...

John Key might want to have a quiet word with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott about Canberra's just-announced crack down on offshore speculators when he visits New Zealand this week, Labour's Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says."Tony Abbott's centre right government… ...

National backbencher Jacqui Dean has spoken out about overseas driver crashes, putting herself at odds with Prime Minister John Key who is on record as saying it’s not a big issue, Labour’s Transport spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “I’m not surprised… ...

Last week I heard two Palestinians speak at Wellington events about the ongoing crisis in their country. Samar Sabawi spoke to a full house about the history of Palestine and gave us a lucid and disturbing account of the situation… ...

An Amnesty International report has once again criticised New Zealand’s track record on looking after our kids, Labour’s Children’s spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. The annual report, which looks at global human rights abuses highlights not only the fact that high… ...

It is clear that the first draft of the Māori Language Bill was about structures and funding rather than the survival of te reo Māori, Labour’s Māori Development Spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta says. “Labour is pleased that the Minister of Māori… ...

This week the Greens have participated in awareness activity about Manus Island, the refugee camp on an island in Papua New Guinea where Australia dumps asylum seekers. John Key says that he has every confidence in the Australian Government’s claim… ...

James Shaw has been doing a series of blogs on the Election Inquiry into last year’s general election. I thought this was a great opportunity to raise an issue very dear to me – accessible voting. Last year’s general election… ...

Housing will continue to be a big issue in 2015. The latest Consumer Price Index, released last month, shows both good news and bad news on the housing front. After years of being the most expensive place to build a… ...

It is amazing that you can hear the song of the endangered North Island kokako in South Auckland’s Hunua Ranges, less than 50 kms from the central city. A heavy schedule of policy workshops at the Green Party’s Policy… ...

The Cricket World Cup has just opened in New Zealand, and it’s an opportunity for us to shine on the world stage. International sport can be a chance for us to build relationships with other countries, and examine what it… ...

This week it was my privilege to work with Sri Lankan Tamil communities in this country and host Australian journalist and human rights advocate Trevor Grant. I knew a bit about Trevor from his biography but I didn’t know just… ...

The Government is about to progress the final stages of the Animal Welfare Amendment bill. This will be our last opportunity to get changes made to improve the bill to ensure a better outcome for animals. I have put forwards… ...

Access to buildings is a big issue for many New Zealanders. It looks like that, due to the hard work and persistence of people in the disability community, the Government may finally be starting to take access to buildings seriously.… ...

The Green Party today called on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Fund) to divest from fossil fuels, starting immediately with coal. The call was accompanied with a new report, Making money from a climate catastrophe: The case for divesting… ...

Share this:

Related

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming Labour Party revenue spokesperson, Clayton Cosgrove’s, challenge to former and current Revenue Ministers Peter Dunne and Todd McClay over the IRD’s child support cost blowout. Yesterday the Taxpayers’ Union alerted ...

Today 350 Aotearoa has launched a petition calling for TSB Bank to make a commitment to being fossil fuel free. The petition comes after TSB Bank, the Taranaki community-owned bank, last week announced it had written down its remaining $53.9… ...

Voters in Ireland are overwhelmingly expected to vote to allow same-sex marriage in a referendum on 22 May , according to the combined wisdom of the 8000+ registered traders on New Zealand’s predictions market, iPredict. Elsewhere in Europe, the ...

Susan Burdett was raped and murdered in her home in March 1992. In May 1994 Teina Pora (“the Appellant”) was convicted of the rape and murder of Ms Burdett and the aggravated burglary of her home. In 1999 the New… ...

Peace vigils calling for increased humanitarian assistance and diplomatic support for Middle East peace processes, and opposing the military deployment to Iraq, will be held around the country from Hokianga to Dunedin at 5pm on Thursday, 5 March. ...

The Privy Council’s upholding of the Teina Pora appeal is further evidence New Zealand needs a Criminal Cases Review Panel, Dean of the University of Canterbury’s School of Law, Associate Professor Chris Gallavin says. ...

The Privy Council’s upholding of the Teina Pora appeal is further evidence New Zealand needs a Criminal Cases Review Panel, Dean of the University of Canterbury’s School of Law, Associate Professor Chris Gallavin says. ...

A careful assessment of what could happen to the health of New Zealanders under the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) is needed, say New Zealand doctors. An Australian report Negotiating Healthy Trade in Australia: Health Impact Assessment ...

Youth organisation, Generation Zero, is today launching a report - Fix Our City: An analysis of the Transport Budget in the 2015 - 2025 Long Term Plan - that proposes that Auckland Council focuses on a transport budget that prioritises… ...

“We are delighted to see that the politicians have recognised the greed and selfishness embodied in their initial response to their remuneration increases and are now proposing to amend the appropriate legislation. About time! ” ...